From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7900 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2003 07:50:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7893 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2003 07:50:58 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:50:00 -0000 From: Andrew Lunn To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [gnu.org #25869] eCos as an FSF project? Message-ID: <20030411075051.GQ20614@biferten.ma.tech.ascom.ch> References: <20030410214734.GH1904@gnu.org> <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E95FC5C.9070204@eCosCentric.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Filter-Version: 1.6 (ascomax) X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 > I vote to go ahead with Red Hat, but if that fails, drop assignments > but retain a disclaimer. Agreed. > Something else to think about is whether we should plough ahead with > 2.0 final anyway, or wait till we hear from Red Hat, or at the very > least wait for some time period for Red Hat. For "just" the > documentation, they will hopefully be amenable to an accommodation - > it's not like the FSF are an unknown quantity! Something to consider > anyway, and it's obvious we can't wait with 2.0 going stale, so I > suggest a drop dead date, which we wouldn't be real close anyway, as > there are still some outstanding 2.0 issues. Make the 2.0 release when its ready independent of what's going on with FSF, assignment etc. 2.1 can be with the changes for FSF. Hopefully, when releases are closer together there is much less work involved in making a release. Andrew