On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel :
>> Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
>>>
>>> The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last
>>> time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into
>>> it
>>
>> That was just an acci
2011/8/13 Stefan Behnel :
> Vitja Makarov, 13.08.2011 06:41:
>>
>> 2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel:
>>>
>>> Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last
time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into
it
>>>
>>> T
Vitja Makarov, 13.08.2011 06:41:
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel:
Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last
time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into
it
That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel :
> Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
>>
>> The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last
>> time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into
>> it
>
> That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the new branch
> you had
Robert Bradshaw, 30.07.2011 18:49:
The only reason I haven't pushed a release branch is that last
time I did that it kept getting the mainline development pulled into
it
That was just an accident on my side when I wasn't aware of the new branch
you had created. Won't happen again. Just open a
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> My opinion is that we create a (short-lived) branch for the release, and
> continue development (ignoring the release) on master.
>
> If CyFunction solves no problems that blocks a release, I am -1 on merging
> it into the release bran
My opinion is that we create a (short-lived) branch for the release, and
continue development (ignoring the release) on master.
If CyFunction solves no problems that blocks a release, I am -1 on merging it
into the release branch. But we shouldn't keep things in pull requests just
because we're
On 30 July 2011 11:55, Vitja Makarov wrote:
> 2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned
>> issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific changeset
>> that he considered questionable), and it seems that we fou
2011/7/30 Stefan Behnel :
> Hi,
>
> I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned
> issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific changeset
> that he considered questionable), and it seems that we found several ways to
> extend the function support bey
Hi,
I wonder what we should do with Vitja's CyFunction branch. He mentioned
issues with it in the past (I remember that there was one specific
changeset that he considered questionable), and it seems that we found
several ways to extend the function support beyond that, which may have an
impa
10 matches
Mail list logo