[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bumping the version number

On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Ian Murdock wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I wouldn't make the development release *too* hard to get to, as a few
> people have suggested doing.  I think that having a separate login for
> getting it is excessive.  It's in our best interest to make the
> development release as easy to get to as possible, so as many users (who
> all know what they're getting into!) can install it and help us make the
> released version more stable.

Ian I have already made a new account. This account is for the people 
that want to mirror it since they will not be able with normal mirror 
packages. This is what we want more than anything else. They can still 
get to the tree through a hidden directory path as before.

> I'd rather make it more obvious than we've been doing that 1.1 is a
> development, not a released, version.  I think that renaming the place
> where it's stored on the FTP archive "development" and moving it to an
> unreadable directory (with the name of this unreadable directory named
> in a README file, after the disclaimers, warnings, etc.) is sufficient. 
Sounds fine to me but the account that goes with the development tree is 
alpha with password gnu/fsf

This should suffice for the people who wish to mirror JUST the 
development branch.

Ian M. if you move it out of ALPHA-TEST then _PLEASE_ let me know so I 
can make this account point to the right place..

Matthew S. Bailey
107 Emmons Hall
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858


... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer,
my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental.  Any
resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader.  The question of the
existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god
coefficient.  (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism
is beyond the scope of this article.)

Reply to: