Hi Zarel, hi list!
Am Mittwoch, 6. Januar 2010 23:44:51 schrieb Guangcong Luo:
> Hey, are we talking about the lack of an announcement on the ML, or
> are we talking about the lack of declaring an intention to tag ahead
> of time? Because I don't remember hearing about beta 5 until _after_ I
> saw
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Per Inge Mathisen
wrote:
> I must say that am a little annoyed that this fix was committed to
> trunk without review and without discussion, and then backported to a
> release branch without discussion, even though it clearly had the
> potential to destabilize the f
Am Mittwoch, 6. Januar 2010 19:19:43 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> Actually I liked the beta5 release, with the build and release one day
> after tagging
:)
--devu
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing l
On Wednesday, 6 January 2010 at 9:48, Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
> I would also have liked at least a notice on the mailing list about
> beta6 before seeing a surprise announcement on the forum.
Yeah, I guess the beta6 release was a bit too quick, sorry. (I wanted to try
getting rid of the "modifi
On Wednesday 06 Jan 2010 09:48:13 Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Warzone 2100 Trac
>
> wrote:
> > #1360: 2.3 beta 6 network code is worse than beta 4
>
> ...
>
> > The changelog says Fix: Sync improvements. (r8975).
> > Is that the issue?
>
> I must say that am a
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Warzone 2100 Trac
wrote:
> #1360: 2.3 beta 6 network code is worse than beta 4
...
> The changelog says Fix: Sync improvements. (r8975).
> Is that the issue?
I must say that am a little annoyed that this fix was committed to
trunk without review and without disc
#1360: 2.3 beta 6 network code is worse than beta 4
---+
Reporter: 4...@… |Type: bug
Status: new |Priority: major
Milestone: unspecified
