Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> ...
Even without the foulup, I think you wou
Matthew,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> ...
>>> Even without the foulup, I think you would see that the merges from
>>> maintenance branches into subsequent
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
...
>> Even without the foulup, I think you would see that the merges from
>> maintenance branches into subsequent branches and into master make it
>> very hard to figure out what has actu
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 12:35 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>>> Going forward, is there any good reason to retain all the old branches
>>> (transforms, 0.91.x etc.)?
>>
>> I don't think we need the transform
Folks,
We had some minor confusion with a merge a few weeks back, which
pulled much of the master branch into the v1.0.x maintenance branch. I
created a new v1.0.x-maint branch that rolled back all of the changes
from that point on, and cherry-picked all of the changes that were
actually intended
On 06/02/2011 12:35 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
>>> going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:
>
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
>>> going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
>> going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:
>>
>> * "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
>> * redo pul
On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
[...]
>
> I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
> going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:
>
> * "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
> * redo pull request 103
> * cherry-pick the following commits off of the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>>> > On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Skipper Seabold wrote:
> I filed a bug report here [1]. If squeeze is false, ret never gets defined.
>
> https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/blob/master/lib/matplotlib/pyplot.py#L794
>
> Skipper
>
> [1]
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=33099
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Skipper Seabold wrote:
> It seems that this commit [1] changed the default directory for the
> sphinx plots directory (now needs to be alongside the directive and
> not in the directory above it?) and now our project's docs will not
> build across different version
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> > On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firin
Mike,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Yes, it seems that the v1.0.x got hosed somehow back in early May. Eric
> Firing did some spelunking and traced it to a push I made, but I'm not sure
> what I did wrong, and I'm even less sure how to fix it. If someone with
> mor
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> > On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing
> wrote:
> The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMH
15 matches
Mail list logo