Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:48:55 -0400, Darren Dale wrote:
[clip]
> * "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
> * redo pull request 103
> * cherry-pick the following commits off of the v1.0.x branch:
> - 069c21d
> - 53f8139e
> - de18d9ab2
> - 91e7d980
> - 0cc213b4fa
> - e7f1e83ace
> - 5c968a0ecdd
>
>
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> Before we made the git transition, I read about various workflows.
> What we are doing now is somewhat similar to what used to be done with
> svnmerge. I just googled "git workflow", and found
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/g
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> Do the packagers use the tip of the maintenance branch, or do they use
> the most recent release? If the former, then that bumps up the priority
> of keeping such a branch. If the latter, it bumps up the priority of
> having frequent high-qua
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:39 AM, John Hunter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> Before we made the git transition, I read about various workflows.
>> What we are doing now is somewhat similar to what used to be done with
>> svnmerge. I just googled "git workflow", an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:39 AM, John Hunter wrote:
> On the animations issue, I have noticed one strange behavior when I tried to
> remove the gtk extension code and replace it with pure python and found the
> new animations API behaved strangely (but not the old) under the new code.
> I never com
Well if you need to rip it out/"temporarily" break it to improve the
> gtk backend, by all means do so. I'll be bogged down for a few more
> months, after which I'll be able to work more on it. (FINALLY.) The
> only reason I even checked it in originally was so that others could
> play, but I was (
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Ryan May wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:39 AM, John Hunter wrote:
> > On the animations issue, I have noticed one strange behavior when I tried
> to
> > remove the gtk extension code and replace it with pure python and found
> the
> > new animations API behaved
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:39 AM, John Hunter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
>> Before we made the git transition, I read about various workflows.
>> What we are doing now is somewhat similar to what used to be done with
>> svnmerge. I just googled "git workflow", an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:39 AM, John Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> Before we made the git transition, I read about various workflows.
>>> What we are doing now is somewhat similar to what use
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> Plus, with regards to timing. Do we want to release before or after the
> upcoming SciPy conference in July? Depending on who will be there
> (unfortunately, I won't be), we might want to wait for after that conference
> to take advanta
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> 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, a
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> 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 bra
On 06/03/2011 07:21 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> P.S. : As an interesting aside to what caused me to find this mistake...
> My docs were still not building correctly, although now that the v1.0.x
> branch is fixed, it didn't have the multiprocessing trick that is in
> master. Therefore, when the er
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 07:21 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
> > P.S. : As an interesting aside to what caused me to find this mistake...
> > My docs were still not building correctly, although now that the v1.0.x
> > branch is fixed, it didn't have the mult
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> By the way, whoever is the one to push the docs up to sourceforge, you can
> now do so from the v1.0.x-maint branch. I have built it on my computer and
> all of my own changes appear correct. I couldn't test *everything* (my
> LaTeX setup i
15 matches
Mail list logo
