I haven't created the patch yet... it seems backwards to generate a backport patchset unless what is currently in trunk is OK. There were some suggestions for improvement made regarding the 2.4 backport that ideally would have been noted and addressed in trunk first. I just want to avoid another go-around ;)
On Jan 4, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Mikhail T. <mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > Sorry -- I meant to send the below just to Jim, but messed-up the headers in > Thunderbird -- and it ended up looking, as if Jim wrote it :( > > On 04.01.2013 14:06, j...@jagunet.com wrote: >> On 04.01.2013 13:48, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> Have people had a chance to test, review and try the balancer >>> persist and inheritance stuff in trunk? I want to make >>> sure that we have some level of verification and agreement >>> there before I work on the backports for 2.4 >>> ;) >> Could you give the link to the patch/issue? I'd be happy to test it with a >> custom-built 2.4.3 here. Thanks! >> -mi >
