[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: KOffice 1.3.2 Release Preparation
From:       Thomas Zander <TZander () factotummedia ! nl>
Date:       2004-06-28 16:27:11
Message-ID: 20040628162711.GA2924 () factotummedia ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

I'm guessing that it is indeed a good idea to tag since you should ship the
Makefile.in files (which are created with the "make -f Makefile.cvs").

So you need it if you later want to re-create the tarballs for some reason.
That is good enough reason to tag it IMO :)


On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 05:49:31PM +0200, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> The koffice module is now tagged with KOFFICE_1_3_2_RELEASE
> (Please check the result, as I had a timeout problem first.)
> 
> A question is remaining. The file koffice/Makefile.cvs is not in the tarballs 
> but it seems that it was always tagged (which indeed make sence). So should I 
> tag it too?
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> On Monday 28 June 2004 10:35, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 June 2004 17:01, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > To clarify the current situation for KOffice 1.3.2, I have decided to set
> > > a new time point.
> > >
> > > So I would like that Monday morning the branch KOFFICE_1_3_BRANCH would
> > > be ready to pack. To avoid any misunderstanding: that is the coming
> > > Monday (2004-06-28, 28th June 2004)
> >
> > So we are Monday morning. Is there any known problem that are left,
> > especially any that would be a regression compared to KOffice 1.3.1?
> >
> > Is everything described in the changelog?
> > http://www.koffice.org/announcements/changelog-1.3.2.php

-- 
Thomas Zander
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]