Re: Review of Upgrade from RH 8.0 to RH 9 (was Re: In-depth review of RHL9 technical changes) - long

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Review of Upgrade from RH 8.0 to RH 9 (was Re: In-depth review of RHL9 technical changes) - long
From: Tim Waugh <twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:01:56 +0100
Delivered-to: shrike-list@listman.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <3E8B15BF.3010303@medata.com>
References: <004701c2f8a1$5fc62740$9d0aa8c0@Locutus> <3E8B0FC6.7070201@medata.com> <20030402164427.GM18309@redhat.com> <3E8B15BF.3010303@medata.com>
Reply-to: shrike-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: shrike-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:54:23AM -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> Noted, thanks. Was this done to avoid issues such as the one I experienced?

It was done for the general reason of avoiding surprises, yes.

Tim.
*/

Attachment: pgp00005.pgp
Description: PGP signature

References:
- RE: In-depth review of RHL9 technical changes
  - From: Daevid Vincent
- Review of Upgrade from RH 8.0 to RH 9 (was Re: In-depth review ofRHL9 technical changes) - long
  - From: Rick Johnson
- Re: Review of Upgrade from RH 8.0 to RH 9 (was Re: In-depth review of RHL9 technical changes) - long
  - From: Tim Waugh
- Re: Review of Upgrade from RH 8.0 to RH 9 (was Re: In-depth reviewof RHL9 technical changes) - long
  - From: Rick Johnson

Prev by Date: Re: Perl Problems
Next by Date: Re: Allowed to re-distribute? ( RH personnel response please )
Previous by thread: Re: Review of Upgrade from RH 8.0 to RH 9 (was Re: In-depth reviewof RHL9 technical changes) - long
Next by thread: Re: Review of Upgrade from RH 8.0 to RH 9 (was Re: In-depth review of RHL9 technical changes) - long
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Fedora Users] [Centos Users] [Kernel Development] [Red Hat Install] [Red Hat Watch] [Red Hat Development] [Red Hat Phoebe Beta] [Yosemite Forum] [Fedora Discussion] [Gimp] [Stuff] [Yosemite News]