Re: LSB 3.0 and who's doing what?
Jeff Licquia writes...
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 13:25 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > I think this work around would only be needed for stable, unstable should b
> > able to do 3.0 on it's own (and probably 2.0 at the same time).
> I should point out that this was the conventional wisdom for woody vs.
> sarge at one point. Now we are saying the same thing for sarge vs.
> etch. Will we be saying the same thing for etch vs. etch+1? What will
> prevent this from happening?
etch releasing in 12 months. Call me crazy but I think it's possible given the
improvements in release infrastructure. (although there are still issues being