Hamish, do you still need devbr6 (6.5)?
I thought that there was a broad consensus that devb6 (65) is not needed and can be retired so that we have only 6.4.3 relbr64 and trunk 7. Helena On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Martin Landa wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/9/20 Maris Nartiss <[email protected]>: >> I changed code a bit to not fail so hard in r53238 (6.4) and r53239 >> (7). Added one extra string 'unknown' > > is there any reason why you skipped 6.5? It's strange to fix it in > release branch and not in dev branch... It source of problems we have > with inconsistency between relbr64 and devbr6. Too many branches... > (my opinion is still the same, to kill devb6). > > Martin > > -- > Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
