Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
Received: from mailgate001.isp.belgacom.be (mailgate001.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.6.86])
        by maildelivery008.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id l6B0bvuv027883
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:37:59 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from r153.dmsolutions.ca (HELO duke.maptools.org) ([209.217.116.153])
  by in.mx.skynet.be with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2007 02:37:59 +0200
Received: from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l6B0Qtcp029313;
	Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:27:08 -0400
Received: from eastrmmtao103.cox.net (eastrmmtao103.cox.net [68.230.240.9])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l6B0QBLR029303
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:12 -0400
Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao103.cox.net
	(InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id
	<20070711002608.HDYL10435.eastrmmtao103.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net>
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:08 -0400
Received: from glerbl.q.qbilt.org ([70.174.166.65])
	by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp
	id N0S71X0081QzGHA0000000; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:07 -0400
Received: from soup ([10.160.59.17] helo=soup.q.qbilt.org)
	by glerbl.q.qbilt.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <ejb@ql.org>) id 1I8Q1v-0005SG-J3
	for tiff@lists.maptools.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:07 -0400
Received: from ejb by soup.q.qbilt.org with local (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <ejb@ql.org>)
	id 1I8Q1v-0004dE-BC; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:07 -0400
From: Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
To: tiff@lists.maptools.org
Message-ID: <20070710202607.0411768846.qww314159@soup.q.qbilt.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:26:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 10.160.59.17
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ejb@ql.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on glerbl.q.qbilt.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: [Tiff] new release status?
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
X-UIDL: 000000000023ceae.000025d7
X-MSP-STORE: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:38:02 +0200
Status: RO


Sorry for asking this silly question.  I'm asking in the context of
the debian tiff package which I maintain.

It's been quite a while since 3.8.2 was released and there are a lot
of fixes in CVS.  I also see that there is a 3.9 branch in CVS.  There
are a small handful of bugs in the debian tiff that have or will
hopefully soon have "upstream" fixes in CVS.  I'm trying to decide
whether it makes sense to just include patches for the specific things
that have been fixed, to try to package a 3.8.2+ version with all the
patches from CVS (though I don't know whether the current trunk in CVS
is considered stable), or to hope for a 3.8.3 release.  Any thoughts?
It looks like 3.8.2 was released in March, 2006.  Thanks for any
insight you can provide.

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
