Github user pauljackson commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/456
OK, sorry about that. I closed it now.
-Paul
From: Jason Plurad [mailto:notificati...@github.com]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 12:13 PM
To: apache/tinkerpop
Github user pluradj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/456
I meant that this pull request #456 can be closed @pauljackson. We'll work
with the other one #457.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user pluradj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/456
I think this one can be closed @pauljackson, and we'll use the other one to
merge to all the branches.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user spmallette commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/456
@pluradj are you going to have votes for these PRs sometime soon? i was
sorta waiting for you to be the first to test this out.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user pauljackson commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/456
Thereâs more differences than just the comments at the head of these
files, so you could copy them from 3.2.3 if you are ok with those changes.
From: Jason Plurad
Github user pluradj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/456
Let's get 3.1.x fixed also. I don't see why not.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user spmallette commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/456
Not sure if it matters, but if we only bring this change to master, 3.1.x
won't build on windows and the process will have diverged. not sure if we
should let that happen. @pluradj do you have
