On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:59:10 -0600, Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'd like to ship a 3.1 M6 (or some stable incremental build between then > > and FC4 freeze) with FC4 and then update to M7 and 3.1 final as they come > > out. > > Me too. Because of ... > > > - awesome new plug-ins like Jeff Pound's ongoing work on the Bugzilla > > plug-in are dependent upon 3.1 (without a tonne of back-porting) > > Thing like that, which would make the development life-cycle process in > eclipse more complete .. and .. > > > - making RPMs will be much simpler than how we're doing the 3.0.1 now > > Organization of above. > > > I'd like to go with 3.1, but we'll need to do lots of testing and > > bug-fixing. The number of gcj/libgcj hackers capable of fixing bugs isn't > > that high and even getting things down to test cases is not an easy task. > > I'd like to hear people's opinions. > > I'll help where I can. In porting the plug-ins (CDT, ChangeLog, RPM > import/export, etc) I expect some cross experience to apply. > Love to help with testing. I use Eclipse 3.1M4 daily. > Regards > > Phil > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- Nick Bargnesi http://www.den-4.com Den 4 Software pub 1024D/E8BD2FD0 2004-12-02 Nick Bargnesi <nbargnesi@xxxxxxxxx> Key fingerprint = 6F9D 9404 63CD 2B04 DE7A 0F9D A1ED C1B0 E8BD 2FD0 sub 2048g/56C5D45B 2004-12-02 dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
