Yeah, that makes sense to me. I'll do a couple more of the simple ones that have recently been flagged, then run through Elliot's checklist.
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 6:19:35 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > We may want to consider doing the minimal number of backports now for > 0.3.7 and then doing a bunch more backports right afterwards. Or at least > that's what we should do for anything even a little bit risky. > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Tony Kelman <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> There have been fewer backports over the past month. It would help if >> people can go through and flag any bug fixes or documentation updates that >> would also apply to the release-0.3 branch. Either mention the >> @juliabackports user in a commit comment, or add the "Backport pending" >> label to a corresponding issue or pull request (if you're a contributor who >> has the permissions to modify labels). Anything borderline, ask whether it >> could/should be backported in a comment. >> >> Going by the so-far-monthly schedule we should think about 0.3.7 soon, >> the one major thing that would fix over 0.3.6 would be the Windows "need to >> restart Julia before adding ZMQ from WinRPM" problem. >> >> >> >> On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-7, Ivar Nesje wrote: >>> >>> There is 25 commits already on the branch. >>> >>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/compare/v0.3.6...release-0.3 >>> >>> But still 4 issues tagged "backport pending" >>> >>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues?q=+label%3A"backport+pending"+ >> >> >
