On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:40:07 -0600, Philip Guenther
At 13:29 28-10-98 -0600, Matt Saroff wrote:
Actually, by this point, I would consider the patched 3.11 to be a full
relase, and work should behind on 3.12.
I would agree here.
However, a distribution not managed by srb should probably be
given a distinctly different release number identifier - such as
3.12pre1un (un for unofficial).
Ick. I've been trying to contact Stephen precisely to avoid this.
I spoke to Stephen on the phone just now. I asked him to find the time
to set up an online meeting of some sort sometime next week. Key
players would be Phil, Stephen and I guess a couple of other
interested parties. I don't see any reason for this to be open to
anyone who is interested but if anybody here would like to witness
this historic discussion, just let me (or Phil or Stephen) know and
I'll try to coordinate a little bit, to the best of my ability.
Anyway, here are my current plans: I'm going to be sending off a
snail-mail letter tomorrow to the address Stephen gave in the README
file requesting permission to take over maintainence and development of
procmail. I also plan on trying to call either him directly, or the
domain administrator of cuci.nl, though if someone in the Netherlands
were to do so before me, my checkbook would appreciate it. I
definitely think that we ought to find out what's up with Stephen
before anyone makes a release of their own.
He says he's not disinterested in Procmail, but swamped with work.
BTW, I have an untarred collection of the procmail-future list at
http://members.xoom.com/procmail/procmail-future/ -- the messages that
were not also sent to the Procmail list are the following (quick grep,
mighta missed a few):
The one with the asterisk is Phil's to-do list.
/* era */
Bot Bait: It shouldn't even matter whether (`') Just (`') http://www.iki
I am a resident of the State of Washington \/ Married! \/ .fi/~era/