Hi, > > As there is no difference between RC4 and the release version, I'm not > > intending to repackage them just for the sake of it as it seems an > > exercise in futility to be honest. > > What if the release version ends up being RC5? Isn't that the point of release > candidates? The point of release candidates is for a final try out. As RC4 == mono-2.0 release, the Novell engineers have obviously come to the conclusion that it's of sufficiently high quality to make it the actual release rather than a candidate. I can certainly repackage them and bump the number up by .1, but the only difference is the .1 and an extra line in the spec file > > Mono releases version 2.1, rawhide gets this plus any bug fixes. After a > > month, this is rolled down to release and after 2 months, release - 1. > > This will also apply to Monodevelop. As I don't have control over other > > Mono packages (or mono-based packages), can I ask that if you do have a > > mono package that you also adopt this system. Currently things in F8 and > > F9 are a mess and they need a good clean up. > > Why wait a month between F10 and F9? I can see waiting between pushing to > updates-testing or rawhide and then to a stable release, but this just seems > an artificial delay in pushing the latest and greatest, as well as bugfixes. Mono relies on a pile of other things, so I'm giving the release -1 time to play catch up. TTFN Paul -- Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
