Ditto what I said before (and thanks for your patience): it sounds
good to me!
On Apr 23, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Rainer Keller wrote:
Hi,
what were we talking about again ;-)?
Aah, right: 1.3.2 is out the door, the dust has settled.
Tuesday, next week, I'd like to apply the patch (produced by
con
Hi,
what were we talking about again ;-)?
Aah, right: 1.3.2 is out the door, the dust has settled.
Tuesday, next week, I'd like to apply the patch (produced by
contrib/check_unnecessary_headers.sh, see the first email).
This will require just two patches:
- one (independent patch) for a few min
Agreed - thanks for the help!
At the moment, almost none of the 1.3.2 CMRs apply cleanly... :-/
That's the source of my concern with a change that would hit so many
things.
Thanks Rainer!
Ralph
On Mar 20, 2009, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
This sounds reasonable -- small changes are alw
This sounds reasonable -- small changes are always appreciated. If we
can hold off on the big patch until 1.3 is about to morph into 1.4,
that would be good.
Can you remind us about this issue when 1.3.2 gets out the door?
(sorry, not trying to be a jerk; I just know that my short term me
Hi Ralph,
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 09:00:36 am Ralph Castain wrote:
> Could we hold off on this until after 1.3.2 is out the door and has a
> couple of days to stabilize? All these header file changes are making
> it more difficult to cleanly apply patches to the 1.3 branch.
Hmm, sure, we can hol
Could we hold off on this until after 1.3.2 is out the door and has a
couple of days to stabilize? All these header file changes are making
it more difficult to cleanly apply patches to the 1.3 branch.
When we get past the next couple of weeks, the 1.3 branch should clear
out the backlog of
