Subject: building 2.2 now

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:52:06 +0100

Since I saw no more reasons to hold back fvwm 2.2 I'm just
now building the fvwm-2.2.tar.gz file. I will even tag the
CVS tree and take the risk to re-teg it with the same
label. When it's ready, please try building and running it
to make sure the package is good. And everyone should make
a final sweep over the documentation.

Bye

Dominik

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 18 Feb 1999 19:46:13 -0500

%% Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

  dv> Since I saw no more reasons to hold back fvwm 2.2 I'm just
  dv> now building the fvwm-2.2.tar.gz file. I will even tag the
  dv> CVS tree and take the risk to re-teg it with the same
  dv> label. When it's ready, please try building and running it
  dv> to make sure the package is good. And everyone should make
  dv> a final sweep over the documentation.

Wait... how is this going to work?  We're going to modify docs and then
create another 2.2?

BTW, should it be 2.2.0 instead of 2.2?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:55:35 +0100

> Wait... how is this going to work?  We're going to modify docs and then

I take this risk since I believe we're *not* going to modify the
docs. I've been extra careful with the documentation so it's
unlikely something relevant comes up. I don't mind the effort
to retag a few files. The only concern might be the name of the
package. I propose we rename it fvwm-2.2.candidate1.tar.gz when
we move it to testingt.

> BTW, should it be 2.2.0 instead of 2.2?

Why? We're always talking about fvwm2 and not fvwm2.1 or
fvwm2.2.0. What would the additional zero give us (except
express that we don't really believe it's stable)?

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:09:15 +0100

> package. I propose we rename it fvwm-2.2.candidate1.tar.gz when

And just as I'm speaking it I see two files that slipped through
my grep the first time: download.html and version.html. I'll update
them and spin a new tarball :)

Bye

Dominik

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 18 Feb 1999 22:09:06 -0500

>> BTW, should it be 2.2.0 instead of 2.2?

  dv> Why? We're always talking about fvwm2 and not fvwm2.1 or
  dv> fvwm2.2.0. What would the additional zero give us (except
  dv> express that we don't really believe it's stable)?

If/when we release 2.2.1 it might be more obvious how that relates to
2.2.0 than it is to 2.2.  Whatever, it doesn't matter to me.  "2.2.0" is
how the Linux kernel works; I thought that was our model.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:28:18 +0100

> how the Linux kernel works; I thought that was our model.

I think it's a bit more friendly to the eye, but I really don't
care. But since '2.2.0' would mean to change half a dozen files
I think we can stick with '2.2'.

Bye

Dominik

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://fvwm.math.uh.edu/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 19 Feb 1999 09:46:46 -0500

%% Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

  dv> I think it's a bit more friendly to the eye, but I really don't
  dv> care. But since '2.2.0' would mean to change half a dozen files
  dv> I think we can stick with '2.2'.

OK, sounds good.

PS. One thing I'd like to do for 2.3 is change the files that include
    version numbers to be constructed at either build or dist time.  In
    the GNU make dist I substitute version, date, etc. info into all the
    README's, etc. at dist construction time so I never have to change
    any files except configure.in to update the version number.

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:06:17 +0100

>     any files except configure.in to update the version number.

Yes, by all means, this would be great. You miss something
too often.

Bye

Dominik