Gpc April 1998

gpc@gnu.de

20 participants
35 discussions

Re: Request for comments: gpc-2.1 schedule
by Nick Burrett 04 Apr '98

04 Apr '98

Orlando Llanes wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Peter Gerwinski wrote: > > According to Orlando Llanes: > > > IMO, if the alpha and beta versions are as stable as 2.0, whichever > > > works better should be set to a "gamma" version which would serve as a > > > "stand-by" version so that when DJGPP 2.8.x is ready for release, the > > > "gama" version will be placed in the distribution. > > > > And that "stand-by" version would be called 2.0.1 or 2.1.0? > > I'm posting this from an e-mail from me to Peter about GPC 2.1. I > think that the "stand-by" version should be GPC 2.1.0 rather than 2.0.1, > there have been a great many significant improvments from gpc 2.0 to where > it is now even tho it's not quite there yet. What about seting the version to 2.0.9 then change the version to 2.0.10, 2.0.11 etc. until 2.1.0 is ready. > I also wanted to add something, when I said the "gamma" version should > be released when DJGPP 2.8.1 is released, I meant that if the current Beta > version is not ready, then the "stand-by" version be released instead with > a note saying that the next version is in the works and is near completion > (or something to that effect). We can release it is 2.1.0 when it is ready. Then we can fix it to work with DJGPP 2.8.1 and release 2.1.1. Nick.

1 0

RE: Request for comments: gpc-2.1 schedule
by Berend de Boer 04 Apr '98

04 Apr '98

On Tuesday, March 31, 1998 8:48 PM, Peter Gerwinski [SMTP:peter@gerwinski.de] wrote: > * We are late with gpc-2.1. Current beta and alpha versions > are already much more stable than gpc-2.0 which is still > the official version. > ... > with the release until some important "holes" (which???) > are fixed might be good for GPC's reputation. If the current releases are more stable, I think it's best to make the next official release asap. Groetjes, Berend.

1 0

unsubscribe
by Krzysztof Kwapien 03 Apr '98

03 Apr '98

Please erase me from this list

1 0

Re: Request for comments: gpc-2.1 schedule
by Orlando Llanes 02 Apr '98

02 Apr '98

On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Peter Gerwinski wrote: > According to Orlando Llanes: > > IMO, if the alpha and beta versions are as stable as 2.0, whichever > > works better should be set to a "gamma" version which would serve as a > > "stand-by" version so that when DJGPP 2.8.x is ready for release, the > > "gama" version will be placed in the distribution. > > And that "stand-by" version would be called 2.0.1 or 2.1.0? I'm posting this from an e-mail from me to Peter about GPC 2.1. I think that the "stand-by" version should be GPC 2.1.0 rather than 2.0.1, there have been a great many significant improvments from gpc 2.0 to where it is now even tho it's not quite there yet. I also wanted to add something, when I said the "gamma" version should be released when DJGPP 2.8.1 is released, I meant that if the current Beta version is not ready, then the "stand-by" version be released instead with a note saying that the next version is in the works and is near completion (or something to that effect). See ya! Orlando Llanes "Meine Damen und Herren, Elvis hat soeben das Gebaeude verlassen!" "Look out fo' flyeeng feet" O__/ a010111t(a)bc.seflin.org \/|____. O <__. \/\> / \ ____________|___\______ http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Monkey414

1 0

gpc-980401.zip
by Peter Gerwinski 02 Apr '98

02 Apr '98

Hello, I am uploading the source of the new alpha for gcc-2.8.0 as a `.zip' file in addition to the `.tar.gz' file: ftp://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/gnu-pascal/alpha/gpc-980401.zip The `.zip' file contains long file names, so be careful when unzipping it. Peter

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

Gpc April 1998