> > However, I see no counter. Only the words
> > "Countdown to Trinity 3.5.12."
> >
> 
> I didn't think about those who don't have JavaScript
> enabled when I wrote
> that counter.  I have now put a static countdown in
> noscript tags to
> resolve the problem.

Good news!

Only now I cannot see anything in the left frame. All I see is this error message:

Not Found

The requested URL /trinity/links_main.html was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) Server at thor.starlink.edu Port 80

> I have also pushed release back until October 03,
> 2010.  This is twofold;
> 1. Primarily, to allow the source mirror to sync up, as the
> uplink is
> being extra slow today
> 2. Secondarily, to allow you to get the Slackware builds
> ready without
> being overly rushed

Good! My days are numbered!

> In the future the Trinity team will need to decide on a
> release type and
> schedule.  Fixed release dates are good from an
> end-user and consumer
> (i.e. various distributions) standpoint, and my opinion is
> that such dates
> should be able to be met provided sufficient
> organization/scheduling is
> provided in the future.  However, if a good case is
> made for floating
> dates I would be willing to change it.  Thoughts from
> other members on the
> list? ;-)

I am only advocating that release dates should be approximate and not rigidly followed. Setting a goal such as October 1 is fine, but if the actual release is October 3 or 4, then nobody loses. When things break they need to be repaired or the release gets bad reviews. I have lost count how many times I have seen that happen and the next day or even hours after release a patch is needed.

I also realize you are for the first time creating links and tarballs for non-Debian users. New territory that requires testing. More than likely these problems won't occur next release.

With that in mind, since your system produces nightly binaries, possibly consider posting nightly tarball snapshots too. That will provide a way to continually test the tarball links in real-time. Building from SVN would produce the same result, but tarballs provide an easy way to keep testing the tarball process. Also, many people like to build snapshot releases from tarballs and not SVN. Just a thought.

With that said, I am reporting a new FTBFS bug in kdelibs. I'll start a new thread.