Question about mount

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 29 March 2006 12:43 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 12:37:24PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >On Wednesday 29 March 2006 11:14 am, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:49:38AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday 29 March 2006 2:04 am, Alexander Griesser wrote:
> >> >
> >> >P.S.  Is it just me, or are we having serious number trouble with these
> >> >releases?  1.00, 1.01, 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.1.1...  I mean, I know ones
> >> > and zeroes are great and all, but we've _got_ to stick a 2 in there
> >> > eventually...
> >>
> >> As said here (http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-March/019846.html),
> >> please let's not do 1.1.1.1, but bump the patchlevel: 1.1.x
> >>
> >> In june, for the upcoming next minor stable release, we'd then have
> >> 1.2.x and so on, ok?
> >
> >Sounds reasonable.  How long should fixes accumulate first, though?
>
> Not sure. From my POV, it wouldn't hurt to push out (and announce,
> *hint* ;) a 1.1.2 sometimes during the first or second (full) week
> in April, i.e. in 4 to 10 days or the like.

I have to catch a plane to this thing on the 10th:
http://www.celinux.org/elc2006/index.html

So how does the 9th sound?

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.