From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26213 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2006 08:43:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 26204 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2006 08:43:47 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TW_YC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ascomax.hasler.ascom.ch (HELO ascomax.hasler.ascom.ch) (139.79.135.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:43:46 +0000 Received: from eiger.ma.tech.ascom.ch (eiger.ma.tech.ascom.ch [139.79.100.1]) by ascomax.hasler.ascom.ch (8.12.9-20030924/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k6V8hgT0010780; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:43:42 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [139.79.100.143] (helo=donkey.ma.tech.ascom.ch) by eiger.ma.tech.ascom.ch with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 1G7TNE-0004Al-00; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:43:40 +0200 Received: from lunn by donkey.ma.tech.ascom.ch with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1G7TND-0000ZT-00; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:43:39 +0200 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:43:00 -0000 To: John Dallaway Cc: ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Deprecating eCos 2.0 Message-ID: <20060731084339.GC30932@donkey.ma.tech.ascom.ch> References: <44B50114.6070004@mlbassoc.com> <44B50F45.3040904@jifvik.org> <20060722173934.GA25013@donkey.ma.tech.ascom.ch> <44C2AC10.1030606@jifvik.org> <44C50A4C.6090400@dallaway.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44C50A4C.6090400@dallaway.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Andrew Lunn X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 My access to email has been a bit spotty, so sorry about taking so long to reply. Im back home now, but life is still a bit chaotic. It seems like we are staying with a version number. O.K. Then i suggest we modify the Download and Install page. Add some text about what the release snapshot is and is not and what the anonycvs is and is not. Also, make sure the date for the release snapshot is clearly stated. This would make it clearer when somebody is doing there first download as to what they are getting and should hopefully reduce some of our problems with historical code. Andrew