On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Sebastien Douche <sdou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 01:45, Christian Hammond <chip...@chipx86.com>
> wrote:
> > While I know it'd be nice to get into RC2, I don't want any regressions
> at
> > this point. I'm going to have to say we're skipping this one for 1.0
> > (especially as we're trying to decide a couple things about the
> > implementation still), but should be able to get it into a point release
> > after.
> Hi Christian,
> I understand your position. I just want to point out the fact that we
> use *intensely* RB with Hg[1], and any strange behavior will be
> rapidly detected I think. Ok, this is an alternative solution: can you
> post a patch with the complete feature? We will test it deeply for the
> next release.

I fully understand, and I want to get this in. I'm not convinced the patch
is currently ready to go in, as I think it will break Subversion pretty
badly, and I want to better understand the problem and hopefully contain the
logic inside the Mercurial SCMTool.

I need to release RC2 pretty soon to fix a few major issues people have hit,
and the goal is to do that tomorrow. There *might* be an RC3, and if the
above can be solved and tested for RC3, then we may be able to get it in. If
not, it'll make a point release soon, and you guys could use the nightly
once it's committed.


Christian Hammond - chip...@chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"reviewboard" group.
To post to this group, send email to reviewboard@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to