Le 11/05/2013 15:45, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe >> wrote:
>>>
Hi Sebb,
Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
> On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Ma
Obviously up for debate, but are my updated thoughts:
- release 2.0 from its own branch (starting with a new changes.xml file)
- release 1.6 from trunk with the changes.xml file only including 1.x stuff
- migrate 1.x into its own branch, and 2.0 into trunk
- only release 1.x fixes if absolutely ne
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Sebb,
> >>
> >> Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
> >> > On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> L
On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>> Hi Sebb,
>>
>> Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
>> > On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Le 08/05/2013 22:46, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
On 11 May 2013 13:21, Gary Gregory wrote:
> OK, then you need to keep 1.6 so we do not loose the history.
>
> 2.0 should also include all fixes from 1.6.
>
> Do you plan on working on 2.0 and 1.6 in parallel? If not, I'd just finish
> 1.6, then do the big changes for 2.0, all from trunk.
>
> Other
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
> > On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Le 08/05/2013 22:46, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gary Gregory a écrit :
> >>>
> On Wed, May 8, 20
OK, then you need to keep 1.6 so we do not loose the history.
2.0 should also include all fixes from 1.6.
Do you plan on working on 2.0 and 1.6 in parallel? If not, I'd just finish
1.6, then do the big changes for 2.0, all from trunk.
Otherwise, you'll need a 1.6 branch and do 2.0 in trunk, or t
It is and isn't up to date. There will be a 1.6 which will include big
fixes. However 2.0 is a major rewrite. So I think the proper course of
action is to remove the 1.6 lines from the changes file in the 2.0 branch,
but leave them in the 1.x branch (trunk). Then when I get around to pushing
1.6 it
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:34 AM, William Speirs wrote:
> OK, so then for the 2.0 release I'd just remove the 1.6 lines?
>
No. Based on changes.xml, It sounds like we were going to have a 1.6, but
now we are calling it 2.0. So you'd change the 1.6 to 2.0.
But... right now I see the line's descri
OK, so then for the 2.0 release I'd just remove the 1.6 lines?
Bill-
On May 10, 2013 5:37 PM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
> The date can be the date you cut the RC.
>
> Gary
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 16:23, William Speirs wrote:
>
> > Consider this a pre release candidate for DBUTILS-2.0. I fixed the
>
10 matches
Mail list logo