On 30/06/2009, at 5:02 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
So, would you say it'd be better to reopen 3057 and assign it to
3.x, or open a new issue that references 3057 and 4167, and assign
that to 3.x?
That's actually the question that I couldn't answer for myself and
the only other opinion so far was an "Agreed" by Brett on an "or"
clause...
Hm, IMHO your second suggestion seems most clean, i.e. open a new
issue that links to the other two, probably adding a short comment
to 3057 saying that this was intentionally reverted for 2.2.0 (i.e.
is not an unexpected regression) and is scheduled for final
resolution by the new issue in 3.x.
Yep, that's what I was agreeing to :) Sorry, pre-coffee and all that.
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
