On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > 1004 is maybe worth a mention. Isn't it necessary for replication > compatibility with upcoming 1.1?
That ticket was already closed 2 or 3 days ago. > If so, it'd be good for people to know they should upgrade to 1.0.3 > before trying to run in a heterogeneous environment with 1.1. > > Other fixes that made it in which I don't see mentioned: > 549 549 is mentioned in the CHANGES file for 1.0.3 > 1037 > 1047 > 1049 > 1065 > > I don't know which of those you want to mention, but I did a quick > scan of the log and these are what I thought might be worth stating. > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 17:48, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP0mQeLWCCo >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> As per the release procedure I'm asking developers for comments on >>> releasing 1.0.3. Also per release procedure I am compelled to >>> specifically ask people to check the NEWS and CHANGES files in the >>> 1.0.x branch for changes since the last release. >>> >>> That is all. >>> >> > -- Filipe David Manana, [email protected], [email protected] "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
