Laurie Harper wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
On 2/16/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we think this is serious enough to warrant a 1.2.9 release, then
it makes
little sense to me to tag 1.3.0 without it. Otherwise, all we're
saying is
"hurrah, we tagged the tree, but oh, you probably don't want to use this
because there's a serious problem we know about that we didn't feel like
taking the extra time to fix".
All I'm saying is that I have no "extra" time. If someone else does,
then please step up and lend a hand.
That's part of my reason for +1'ing a 1.3.0 release, even if it's never
promoted (as a whole) from test release; Ted's put a ton of work into
getting to this point. If a 1.3.0 release happens now, it'll presumably
take less time and effort to incrementally address remaining issues and
release updates of just the action sub-project, compared to postponing
the 1.3.0 release and having to repeat much of the testing and prep work
that's just been done.
Oops. Ted and others have put... Sorry, didn't mean to allocate the
blame^H^H^H^H^H^H credit to just Ted.
L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
