Mono 2.0

[Paul]

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!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081005/86d6fd1c/attachment.sig>