Re: [math] next step

2013-04-09 Thread Thomas Neidhart
On 04/09/2013 07:51 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 4/8/13 10:24 AM, Gilles wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:33:11 +0100, sebb wrote: >>> On 8 April 2013 13:22, Gilles wrote: >>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe > wrote: >

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-09 Thread Phil Steitz
On 4/8/13 10:24 AM, Gilles wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:33:11 +0100, sebb wrote: >> On 8 April 2013 13:22, Gilles wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote: >>> On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns), >

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-08 Thread Gilles
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:33:11 +0100, sebb wrote: On 8 April 2013 13:22, Gilles wrote: On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote: On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns), Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit : > I would only go back

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-08 Thread sebb
On 8 April 2013 13:22, Gilles wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote: > >> On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> >> Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns), >>> >>> Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit : >>> > I would only go back and bother with creating a bra

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-08 Thread Gilles
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:52:25 +0100, sebb wrote: On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns), Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit : > I would only go back and bother with creating a branch when it is > needed. As for a repackage I would only do

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-08 Thread sebb
On 8 April 2013 08:14, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns), > > Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit : > > I would only go back and bother with creating a branch when it is > > needed. As for a repackage I would only do that if I knew for certain > > that I wan

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-08 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Hi Gary (and Sebb who had similar concerns), Le 08/04/2013 00:33, Gary Gregory a écrit : > I would only go back and bother with creating a branch when it is > needed. As for a repackage I would only do that if I knew for certain > that I want to break BC. Yes, we need (not want) to break compatib

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-07 Thread Gary Gregory
I would only go back and bother with creating a branch when it is needed. As for a repackage I would only do that if I knew for certain that I want to break BC. Gary On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:57, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Hi all, > > The release for 3.2 has been completed. Now it is time to think about

Re: [math] next step

2013-04-07 Thread sebb
On 7 April 2013 13:56, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Hi all, > > The release for 3.2 has been completed. Now it is time to think about > the next release. > > There are many JIRA issues that target 4.0 as they need to introduce > backward incompatible changes. All these changes would be really welcome.

[math] next step

2013-04-07 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Hi all, The release for 3.2 has been completed. Now it is time to think about the next release. There are many JIRA issues that target 4.0 as they need to introduce backward incompatible changes. All these changes would be really welcome. I suggest we create a 3.x branch just in case we need to