#18835: Fix #18691 fix to #17572 fix to R.
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: charpent | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: packages: | Resolution:
standard | Merged in:
Keywords: r-project | Reviewers:
Authors: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 18a1262794650e2ffca46bb1e70fd2910a7df645
u/charpent/fix__18691_fix_to__17572_fix_to_r_| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by charpent):
* status: needs_work => needs_review
Comment:
Done. I learned something useful. {{{needs_review}}}, again.
However, something worries me. I'v read again and again and again (in the
Developer's guide, on {{{sage-devel}}} threads, on various ticket
brawls...err...discussions) thar "rewriting history" was, //a priori// a
bad idea. I suppose that, in the present case, it is admissible because
nobody has yet merged this contribution is anything else. Is this correct
?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18835#comment:18>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
