Damn - sorry for missing that.
_Cancelling_ the vote - I think it's worth the extra small effort to
get the release notes in there, especially so we can explain the
'beta' concept.
Hen
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Oliver Heger
wrote:
> Still a bit worried about having an incorrect version o
No. :)
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 6:51 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> My IDE shows some findbugs warnings on the code. Should we clean this
> stuff up first?
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> Context:
>>
>> Releasing a beta version of the Lang 3.0 API for user feedback.
>> T
Still a bit worried about having an incorrect version of release notes.
But everything else (artifacts, build, site) looks good, so here is my +1.
Oliver
Am 23.07.2010 21:33, schrieb Henri Yandell:
Context:
Releasing a beta version of the Lang 3.0 API for user feedback.
There aren't any maj
My IDE shows some findbugs warnings on the code. Should we clean this
stuff up first?
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Context:
>
> Releasing a beta version of the Lang 3.0 API for user feedback.
> There aren't any major API changes expected, unless the community
> raises
> >> We all agree that the [math] API needs work. If we cut more frequent
> >> major releases, we can evolve the API. Lets do that.
> >>
> >
> > +1 on creating a 2.2 branch and concentrating [math] on 3.0.
>
> I would really much like to have a new version out this year, I need
> some changes fo
Le 24/07/2010 04:41, Bill Barker a écrit :
>
>
> --
> From: "Phil Steitz"
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 5:42 PM
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Subject: Re: clirr for MATH-389
>
>> Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>> Intentional but still a mistake
