Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Simon Stevenson: "RE: Is it time for a formal release?"
• Previous message: Chuck Urwiler: "RE: Is it time for a formal release?"
• Next in thread: Chris Hoekstra: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Reply: Chris Hoekstra: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Maybe reply: Fred Maxwell: "RE: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Reply: Gajdos_at_metatem.net: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Reply: Daniel Gudlat: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Maybe reply: Mat Holton: "Re[2]: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi

I suggest that we package and release EXACTLY what we have now in CVS, without
waiting for _any_ additional patches. (With the exception of bug fixes.)

I fully agree that several of the patches in the patch tracker are way cool
and should go in soon, but let's do them after the 2.1 release. Heck, if we
just get all the nice patches in, we could release a 2.2 immediately and that
wouldn't have to wait another eon.

If someone steps forward very soon and volounteers to do the editing, I
suggest that we give a little extra time for the documentation to get updated.

This approach is suggested to achieve a 2.1 release very soon with what we
have already. Adding lots of new patches would require an additional
testing-period.

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/

• Next message: Simon Stevenson: "RE: Is it time for a formal release?"
• Previous message: Chuck Urwiler: "RE: Is it time for a formal release?"
• Next in thread: Chris Hoekstra: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Reply: Chris Hoekstra: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Maybe reply: Fred Maxwell: "RE: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Reply: Gajdos_at_metatem.net: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Reply: Daniel Gudlat: "Re: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Maybe reply: Mat Holton: "Re[2]: Suggestion on a 2.1 release"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]