Ok, fair enough. Maybe since it's pretty stable and doesn't break anything, we should just move static compilation over to the release-0.2 branch?
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jameson Nash <[email protected]> wrote: > The static compile branch was originally written against 0.2, and was > merged shortly afterwords. It merges cleanly, modulo a comment I > edited in both branches. > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Stefan Karpinski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That seems like an unreasonable amount of work for someone to have to do > for > > a stablish post 0.2 branch. Honestly, the 0.3 branch has been pretty > stable. > > If you wanted to snapshot master right now, I think you'd be fine. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Jameson Nash <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> If you don't mind doing a bit of work, you could probably merge that > >> pull request into your local 0.2 branch. > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Westley Hennigh > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > The work done towards static compilation > >> > (https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/4898) is awesome, but I > have to > >> > work from a fairly stable build. Does anyone have a trusted sha from > >> > after > >> > 7a34a0dee422c78a7edf59a7e088ea0beb848f79 that I could build from until > >> > the > >> > next release is tagged? > >> > > >> > Thanks! > > > > >
