I noticed MM 2.0.9 available for download on sourceforge, but I never saw an announcement for it. Checking the mailman-announce archives confirms this. Was this intentional?
"JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <jason-list-mailman-developers@mastaler.com> writes:
JRM> I noticed MM 2.0.9 available for download on sourceforge, but
JRM> I never saw an announcement for it. Checking the
JRM> mailman-announce archives confirms this. Was this
JRM> intentional?I've had a bunch of other bookkeeping issues I need to take care of first. The announcement will go out today. -Barry
barry@zope.com (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
I've had a bunch of other bookkeeping issues I need to take care of first. The announcement will go out today.
Or, if you want to incorporate my Message-ID patch, perhaps release/announce 2.0.10 instead?
On 4/4/02 11:27 AM, "Jason R. Mastaler" <jason-list-mailman-developers@mastaler.com> wrote:
barry@zope.com (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:
I've had a bunch of other bookkeeping issues I need to take care of first. The announcement will go out today.
Or, if you want to incorporate my Message-ID patch, perhaps release/announce 2.0.10 instead?
Just MHO, but I wouldn't roll a release just for the message-id patch. I'd put it in the 2.1 tree, and if something else makes a 2.0.10 worthwhile, roll it then.
-- Chuq Von Rospach, Architech chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/
The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging.
Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:
Just MHO, but I wouldn't roll a release just for the message-id patch. I'd put it in the 2.1 tree, and if something else makes a 2.0.10 worthwhile, roll it then.
Do you mean the 2.0 tree? 2.1 already adds a Message-ID (with different code).
It's up to Barry I guess, but I was thinking that a 2.0.10 would be easy because 2.0.9 was never formally announced. Release numbers are cheap.
"JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <jason-list-mailman-developers@mastaler.com> writes:
JRM> It's up to Barry I guess, but I was thinking that a 2.0.10
JRM> would be easy because 2.0.9 was never formally announced.
JRM> Release numbers are cheap.Bumping the rev numbers is just the smallest tip of the release iceberg. It takes /much/ more time and effort to do the SF dance, get all the web pages and tarballs pushed out, writing the announcement, etc.
Trust me, doing a release is /not/ a trivial affair.
-Barry
"CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:
CVR> Just MHO, but I wouldn't roll a release just for the
CVR> message-id patch. I'd put it in the 2.1 tree, and if
CVR> something else makes a 2.0.10 worthwhile, roll it then.Boy Chuq, I think you're as good at channeling me as Tim Peters is at channeling Guido. Be afraid.
BTW, this -- and the Date: header -- are already in MM2.1. :) -Barry
"JRM" == Jason R Mastaler <jason-list-mailman-developers@mastaler.com> writes:
>> I've had a bunch of other bookkeeping issues I need to take
>> care of first. The announcement will go out today.
JRM> Or, if you want to incorporate my Message-ID patch, perhaps
JRM> release/announce 2.0.10 instead?I don't think the Message-ID patch is important enough to warrant another release, but I'll commit it to the code base in case there /is/ a 2.0.10.
-Barry
On Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 12:29 PM, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
I noticed MM 2.0.9 available for download on sourceforge, but I never saw an announcement for it. Checking the mailman-announce archives confirms this. Was this intentional?
It's also not on ftp.gnu.org yet, which combined with the lack of announcement made me wonder if it was officially released yet. But I'm running it anyways. ;)
Bryan
participants (4)
-
barry＠zope.com -
Bryan Fullerton -
Chuq Von Rospach -
Jason R. Mastaler