Anyone have any objections to me tagging 0.3.7, now-ish? Elliot, if you get this, is there anything special on the buildbot side to make it post actual release binaries, or is it just the normal "rc build" on a tagged sha?
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 9:56:33 PM UTC-7, Tony Kelman wrote: > 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]> 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"+ >>> >>> >>
