On 5/22/2015 8:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
There might be others who test when some
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
>> gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
>
>
> There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them
> and
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
> gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them and
they have time ;)
> I tried, but I never got
> even to the point
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:51 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
> prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
> correction/objection?
>
>
IMO it is appropriate to use CTR in the stable branches with
platform-
+1
On 22 May 2015 at 08:51, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
> prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
> correction/objection?
>
> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> y
I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win. I tried, but I never got
even to the point of getting it to even compile/build much
less to a point where I could *test* :)
> On May 22, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:49 -0500
William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
> ported-afterwards function
I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
correction/objection?
It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable dri
