Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On 5/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tim> If there's no functionality changes, what would be the
> problem with Tim> putting it in post-alpha?
>
> It still represents new code that may introduce new bugs. In theory
> (and
> generally in p
On 5/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim> If there's no functionality changes, what would be the problem withTim> putting it in post-alpha?It still represents new code that may introduce new bugs. In theory (andgenerally in practice for Python), once you move into the b
Tim> If there's no functionality changes, what would be the problem with
Tim> putting it in post-alpha?
It still represents new code that may introduce new bugs. In theory (and
generally in practice for Python), once you move into the beta stage all you
do is fix bugs.
Skip
Steve Holden wrote:
> Will it be acceptable to add new (performance) changes between Alpha 3
> and beta 1, or would developers prefer to put a fourth alpha in to the
> schedule?
>
> The intention is there should be no major functionality added by the
> sprint, simply that performance should be im
neal.norwitz wrote:
Please note that the "Need for Speed" sprint runs May 21 - 27.
Bringing the schedule forward on Alpha 3 makes it less possible to
incorporate sprint changes into the 2.5 trunk.
Will it be acceptable to add new (performance) changes between Alpha 3
and beta 1, or would devel
