On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:40:08AM +0200, Piotr Kubaj wrote: > On 09/09/2014 11:06, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:40:32AM +0200, Piotr Kubaj wrote: > >> On 09/09/2014 10:36, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 09:05:22AM +0200, Piotr Kubaj wrote: > >>>>> Don't know how I messed up, I did a final sync with firefox 32 branch > >>>>> and we now > >>>>> have firefox 33.0.b1 instead of firefox32... > >>>>> > >>>>> I wonder if I should bring it back or keep it as is. > >>>>> > >>>>> regards, > >>>>> Bapt > >>>> > >>>> I've just noticed that myself and wanted to notify you about, but it's > >>>> good you already know. > >>>> > >>>> I would just leave it as it is now, betas of Firefox are now quite > >>>> stable. It just needs too be updated more often and if you don't feel > >>>> like keeping it up to date at least until 33 stable, I guess you should > >>>> revert it. > >>>> Thanks for the update anyway! > >>>> > >>> > >>> Because I have no time at all to update on regular basis and it seems > >>> that no > >>> committers have such time, I have committed the real 32.0 version > >>> > >>> regards, > >>> Bapt > >>> > >> You forgot about bumping PORTEPOCH. > > > > Nope I did it on purpose, imho 33.0b1 didn't stay long enough so no need to > > pollute with PORTEPOCH, now if I got too much complain from user I will bump > > PORTEPOCH. > > > > regards, > > Bapt > > > Next bugs :) > Committed,
Thanks
pgpvWt27JxnMT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
