Re: lyx_1.1.2-1 replaces lyx_1.0.4-3
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Paul Seelig wrote:
>
> > > Changes:
> > > lyx (1.1.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
> > >
> > I don't think that it's a good idea to replace a version released as
> > stable by the upstream developers with a devel version which is
> > considered by the very same upstream developers to be their devel
> > version for which they don't even guarantee proper compilation. :-\
>
> Notes:
>
> 1- http://www.lyx.org/news.php3#item2 says:
>
> `LyX 1.1.2 released
>
> The second release in the new "advancement" series are now
> available it fixes a couple of semi-serious bugs in 1.1.1 and
> is considered stable.'
>
> 2- http://www.lyx.org/download/ says:
>
> `A quick summary: download things from the "stable" directory
> for stability; or live on the edge, go to the Developers page
> and get less stable versions via CVS.'
>
> This version was downloaded from
> ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/stable/lyx-1.1.2.tar.gz
^^^^^^
hmm...
from the same web page: http://www.lyx.org/download/versions.php3
Perhaps an example would make more sense. At a given time (July
23, 1999), the latest stable version was
1.0.3. The next stable version would be 1.0.4. So far, two
prereleases had been made of the new version, so the latest was
1.0.4pre2. The core developers had meanwhile begun working on versions
1.1.x, and the changes made during that cycle would be reflected
(eventually) in a stable version 1.2.0. In this case:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
puzzled...
> 3- If it didn't compile we couldn't upload it.
;)
> 4- I agree that we shouldn't package stuff that upstream doesn't
> want available mainstream. I don't think that this is the
> case with Lyx.
>
> 5- It's up to Michael Meskes to decide.
>
> I _do_ appreciate your comments, and in no way do I want to sound
> harsh in my response.
>
could Michael put a light on this subject?
thank you
OK
Reply to: