Yes
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2282
On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
> Usually I put the 1.1 tag on items I integrated in 1.0 and I didn't close the
> issues so they are not lost. The only one I remember that we may also want to
> integrate is the network rollback. Not sure what the plan is there. But it
> doesn't seem anybody is working on a better implementation so I suggest we
> also roll back in 1.1.
>
> Adrian
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 14:20 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adrian
>>>
>>> Once 1.0 is released we should check that all the fixes that went in 1.0
>>> after the fork to 1.1 are integrated in 1.1.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is how we can identify them ?
>> I only remember
>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1841
>> but it even is different in 1.1
>>
>> Ahh maybe also the NetNameResolver problem ?
>>
>>
>>> Would be nice also to remove the testsexpected to break so that we give
>>> them a chance to be fixed in 1.1.
>>>
>>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>>
>>> Stef
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
