In article <20141015165846.2b7a7...@limelight.wooz.org>,
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 2.6 for sure. I don't know what actually has to happen to mark them closed,
> but there will not be another 2.6 release.
Benjamin has taken care of closing both the 2.6 and 3.1 branches. RIP
--
Ned Deily,
n...@ac
On 15/10/14 22:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2014, at 01:47 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>
>> Since both 2.6 and 3.1 are now retired, their branches should be marked
>> as closed at this point, like earlier retired releases. Barry?
>> Benjamin?
>
> 2.6 for sure. I don't know what actually has
On Oct 15, 2014, at 01:47 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>Since both 2.6 and 3.1 are now retired, their branches should be marked
>as closed at this point, like earlier retired releases. Barry?
>Benjamin?
2.6 for sure. I don't know what actually has to happen to mark them closed,
but there will not be
In article <543ed795.3010...@jcea.es>, Jesus Cea wrote:
> Mercurial branches 3.1 and 2.6 are not "inactive". They are not "merged":
>
> """
> [jcea@babylon5 cpython]$ hg branches
> default93408:fd658692db3a
> 2.793384:7ba47bbfe38d
> 3.1
Mercurial branches 3.1 and 2.6 are not "inactive". They are not "merged":
"""
[jcea@babylon5 cpython]$ hg branches
default93408:fd658692db3a
2.793384:7ba47bbfe38d
3.190584:c7b93519807a
2.690420:23a60d89dbd4
