On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 09:20:42AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Let's set a date : we release 1.2.0 on Friday: no if's, no but's.
>
> I am on national holiday on friday.
It was an example - I am in no position to issue such a statement :)
john
--
"So what you're saying is "screw the
Angus Leeming wrote:
>>>These are now the patches up for consideration,
>>>Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
>>>needed in 1.2.0. Several of these also miss a Changelog.
>>>
>>- keepvert.patch
>>- whbug.patch
>>
>>are both not critical and tested by others.
d
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 14-May-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>>| Anyway do you want me to commit both? They are needed anyway, now or
>>| later. If we apply them now we will get less User complaints ;)
>>
>> Put them in now.
>
| I put in #387 and #390 and left the ertl
On 14-May-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>| Anyway do you want me to commit both? They are needed anyway, now or
>| later. If we apply them now we will get less User complaints ;)
>
> Put them in now.
I put in #387 and #390 and left the ertlabel update patch for 1.2.1.
Jug
--
-._-._
On Tuesday 14 May 2002 10:25 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Is there any reason why my insetcite patch, now tested by several people,
> | isn't included in your list?
>
> send it again.
Index: src/insets/ChangeLog
==
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Is there any reason why my insetcite patch, now tested by several people,
| isn't included in your list?
send it again.
--
Lgb
On Monday 13 May 2002 5:28 pm, Herbert Voss wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
> >
> > These are now the patches up for consideration,
> > Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
> > needed in 1.2.0. Several of the
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 13-May-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>>| Well same as my previous mail.
>>
>> And do you have ChangeLogs in all of yours?
>
| No I normally add ChangeLogs before I commit. This are trivial patches
| so you should understand what they do by the c
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:46:58PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> These are now the patches up for consideration,
>> Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
>> needed in 1.2.0. Several of these also miss a Changelog.
On 13-May-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>| Well same as my previous mail.
>
> And do you have ChangeLogs in all of yours?
No I normally add ChangeLogs before I commit. This are trivial patches
so you should understand what they do by the comments I added and by
the patch themselfs.
Anyway d
Herbert Voss wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>>
>> These are now the patches up for consideration,
>> Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
>> needed in 1.2.0. Several of these also miss a Changelog.
>
>
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 04:46:58PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> These are now the patches up for consideration,
> Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
> needed in 1.2.0. Several of these also miss a Changelog.
Let's set a date : we release 1.2.0 on Friday
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>
> These are now the patches up for consideration,
> Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
> needed in 1.2.0. Several of these also miss a Changelog.
- keepvert.patch
- whbug.patch
a
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 13-May-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>>
>> These are now the patches up for consideration,
>> Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
>> needed in 1.2.0. Several of
On 13-May-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
>
> These are now the patches up for consideration,
> Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
> needed in 1.2.0. Several of these also miss a Changelog.
Well same as my pre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
These are now the patches up for consideration,
Id like to know which ones are tested and working, and also absolutely
needed in 1.2.0. Several of these also miss a Changelog.
? .math_cursor.h.swp
? .math_hullinset.C.swp
Index: math_cursor.C
On 13-May-2002 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> These are the patches under consideration:
>
The only patches I have open are:
(real bugfixes which should go in IMO)
fixbug387.patch
fixbug390.patch
And one which you decided should go in only in 1.2.1:
ertlabel.patch
Some of the patches you have
[I wonder where that text I added on that mail went]
These are the patches that I am considering for 1.2.0, and I really
like to _not_ apply as many as possible of them.
Which of those patches are _really_ needed?
--
Lgb
18 matches
Mail list logo
