On May 04, 2011, at 09:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Since 3.2.1 is the first release from Mercurial, I'm likely going to need
>> extra time figure out the best process, and to go through PEP 101 and fix
>> it (XXX what do we do with the SVN in
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Since 3.2.1 is the first release from Mercurial, I'm likely going to need
> extra time figure out the best process, and to go through PEP 101 and fix
> it (XXX what do we do with the SVN instructions, which are still valid
> for 2.6?).
I would
> Martin, Ned: I would say it's not mandatory for the beta release to have
> binaries, but you might want to test out your toolchains against the new
> process too.
Indeed. I'd prefer if the release clone is public somewhere, so that I
can point my local clones to it.
Regards,
Martin
Service announcement from your friendly release manager:
Since 3.2.1 is the first release from Mercurial, I'm likely going to need
extra time figure out the best process, and to go through PEP 101 and fix
it (XXX what do we do with the SVN instructions, which are still valid
for 2.6?).
Therefore,
