W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > December 2002

Re: [ANN] New generation of the "Markup Validator" released

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:51:41 +0100
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
cc: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org>, Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a01060007-1022-A910E87405DB11D7987A00039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:

>On Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 18:10 Asia/Tokyo, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
>>BTW, if I notice small things like typos, should I go ahead and commit
>>changes myself, or send bug reports here? Either is fine with me.
>>(doing the commits directly seems more efficient)
>
>It's certainly OK if you commit changes yourself. However, since the
>code has been branched and all, it's probably better if you discuss it a
>bit, either on IRC or on the public-qa-dev list (it's closed to
>subscription, but feel free to add yourself), beforehand.

Hmm. And given that /source/ now points at the wrong branch we should
probably try to document the CVS branch practice.

FYI Ger, CVS HEAD is now "unstable" and stabilization towards a release
goes onto a branch. Currently we're at "validator-0_6_0-branch", with 0.6.1
(CVS Tag "validator-0_6_1-release) just out the door and, it looks like, a
0.6.2 release soon to follow.


-- 
When I decide that the situation is unacceptable for me, I'll simply fork
the tree.   I do _not_ appreciate being enlisted into anyone's holy wars,
so unless you _really_ want to go _way_ up in my  personal shitlist don't
play politics in my vicinity.                   -- Alexander Viro on lkml
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 04:51:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:43 GMT