On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 06/20/2011 11:29 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
>> Ok, I've migrated the issues over to github.
>>
>> Darren
>
> Darren,
>
> Thank you. Now I see another possible problem with the issue tracker:
> it doesn't seem to have a way to select issues th
On 06/20/2011 11:29 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> Ok, I've migrated the issues over to github.
>
> Darren
Darren,
Thank you. Now I see another possible problem with the issue tracker:
it doesn't seem to have a way to select issues that do *not* have a
particular label. Well, at least that gives u
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 10:35 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
>>
>> I figured out how to migrate soureforges tracker to github issues with
>> the new github api. There are 232 open issues on the sourceforge
>> tracker, 79 of which are feature requests. Most sf
On 06/20/2011 08:47 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
>> On 06/15/2011 10:35 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I figured out how to migrate soureforges tracker to github issues with
>>> the new github api. There are 232 open issues on the sourceforge
>>>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 10:35 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
>>
>> I figured out how to migrate soureforges tracker to github issues with
>> the new github api. There are 232 open issues on the sourceforge
>> tracker, 79 of which are feature requests. Most sf
On 06/15/2011 10:35 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
> I figured out how to migrate soureforges tracker to github issues with
> the new github api. There are 232 open issues on the sourceforge
> tracker, 79 of which are feature requests. Most sf issues are from
> 2009 and on, many in the last few months.
On 06/15/2011 04:35 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
> I figured out how to migrate soureforges tracker to github issues with
> the new github api. There are 232 open issues on the sourceforge
> tracker, 79 of which are feature requests. Most sf issues are from
> 2009 and on, many in the last few months. H
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> On 06/15/2011 01:00 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Michael Droettboom
>>> wrote:
On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
> On W
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 01:00 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Michael Droettboom
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM, John Hunter
wrote:
On 06/15/2011 01:00 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM, John Hunterwrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Darren Dalewrote:
> I suggest we mak
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM, John Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>>
I suggest we make a 1.1.x branch from the current state of mast
On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM, John Hunter wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest we make a 1.1.x branch from the current state of master, and
>>> consider it as a placeholder for now. Then we bump the version
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:06 AM, John Hunter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
>
>> I suggest we make a 1.1.x branch from the current state of master, and
>> consider it as a placeholder for now. Then we bump the version number
>> in the py3 repo to *2.0*, merge py3/ma
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> I suggest we make a 1.1.x branch from the current state of master, and
> consider it as a placeholder for now. Then we bump the version number
> in the py3 repo to *2.0*, merge py3/master back into mpl/master, and
> delete the py3 repo. The re
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 01:38 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Michael Droettboom
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This was recently discussed in the thread "v1.0.x branch seems confused."
>>>
>>> I (believe) the consensus was to g
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Xavier Gnata wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 07:38 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Michael Droettboom
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This was recently discussed in the thread "v1.0.x branch seems confused."
>>>
>>> I (believe) the consensus was to get out
On 06/13/2011 07:38 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> This was recently discussed in the thread "v1.0.x branch seems confused."
>>
>> I (believe) the consensus was to get out another v1.0.x maintenance
>> release out in the near future (which w
On 06/13/2011 01:38 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> This was recently discussed in the thread "v1.0.x branch seems confused."
>>
>> I (believe) the consensus was to get out another v1.0.x maintenance
>> release out in the near future (which w
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> This was recently discussed in the thread "v1.0.x branch seems confused."
>
> I (believe) the consensus was to get out another v1.0.x maintenance
> release out in the near future (which would not support py3k, but would
> still support
19 matches
Mail list logo
