On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > 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." >
Thanks for the double check on that Randall. Time to roll a release.
