[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance
From: |
Philip Webb |
Subject: |
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:39:07 -0500 (EST) |
980227 Scott McGee wrote:
> it is important to have Y2K mentioned in this release.
> With growing concern regarding Y2K, many organizations may decide
> to upgrade Lynx if they can easily determine it is compliant,
> but may just drop it if not.
this seems the likely scenario to which we should address 2-8 documentation.
> an easily found (near the top of the document) reference in the main readme
> would suffice for most such. On the other hand, there may be those
> who will mearly look at the latest release source files for any indication
> of Y2K compliance, and if they can see it from file name,
> may be more likely to upgrade.
this also seems very likely for harrassed sysadmins out there.
so Y2K should be mentioned twice (it won't hurt):
once in the README file for those who start there,
but also in a file called Y2K or YEAR2000 or something else obvious,
for those who just flip thro' the directory listing;
the same text will suffice in both places.
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
- Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, (continued)
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Personal, 1998/02/25
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Nelson Henry Eric, 1998/02/26
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Bela Lubkin, 1998/02/26
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Personal, 1998/02/27
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Nelson Henry Eric, 1998/02/27
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Nelson Henry Eric, 1998/02/27
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Bela Lubkin, 1998/02/28
Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance, Personal, 1998/02/28