Thanks for the input and the info. I'll have a look at those issues and
hopefully get them sorted before the sprint.
Ben
On 12/09/2007, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/07, Ben Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the responses guys.
> > Russ what is your feel
On 9/12/07, Ben Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses guys.
> Russ what is your feeling about getting multi-db into the repo so that
> people can then use it? I'm happy to do the work that I mentioned above in
> merging the branch up to date to the point of the backend refacto
Thanks for the responses guys.
Russ what is your feeling about getting multi-db into the repo so that
people can then use it? I'm happy to do the work that I mentioned above in
merging the branch up to date to the point of the backend refactor in trunk,
and after that to start exploring re-factorin
Hi
> No problems. If I was too harsh, I apologize. You're not alone in
> wanting this feature - if you search the archives, there is a
> reasonable number of people that have expressed an interest - however,
> this is one of those features that people want, but very few are
> willing to help out
On 9/11/07, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> No problems. If I was too harsh, I apologize. You're not alone in
> wanting this feature - if you search the archives, there is a
> reasonable number of people that have expressed an interest - however,
> this is one of those features that people want, but
On 9/11/07, identify <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think I was slightly misunderstood or my post left a false
> intention. My true purpose just was to say, that e.g. I am one of
> those who would like to see this as a core feature. I didn't meant to
> crack the whip ;-)
No problems. If
Hi,
I think I was slightly misunderstood or my post left a false
intention. My true purpose just was to say, that e.g. I am one of
those who would like to see this as a core feature. I didn't meant to
crack the whip ;-)
> It has been considered. It has been accepted. It just hasn't been
> implem
On 9/11/07, identify <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So please: as there is time and place - please do us a favor and
> consider this (somewhat really important) feature!
It has been considered. It has been accepted. It just hasn't been
implemented. For all the noise about how essential this featu
I really can't await on having the multi-db-branch as a trunk feature.
Honestly: I think this is really a must have feature according to
stuff like having high priority data separated from minor priority
data (e.g. user/login data as a high priority). It would be a charm on
e.g. having it spread o
Hi folks,
I think I can be free for most of Friday (Indonesian time GMT+6). I'd like
to suggest focusing my time to get the multi-db branch as up to date as
possible, I would imagine that up to the backend refactoring at the very
least, it's up to 5589 on my machine right now so an extra push to 59
10 matches
Mail list logo
