Yes, that's why I'm proposing to add it to NEWS or CHANGES.
On Apr 23, 2011 4:57 AM, "Filipe David Manana" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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."
