--On 17. November 2005 07:45:48 +0800 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that
the trunk remains frozen?
--On 17. November 2005 15:36:23 +0100 Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Delete the 2.9 branch at this time just for the sake of deleting it would
be stupid. I hope that Philipp will finish his work soon so this this
issue is not so important. That means:
2.9 branch: feature frozen, open
--On 14. November 2005 14:25:17 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 00:20 +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the
status
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 19:47 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 14. November 2005 14:25:17 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 00:20 +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that
the trunk remains frozen?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously he did not as I assumed.
So in this case Philipp needs to commit his
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that
the trunk remains frozen?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 16. November 2005 14:03:05 -0500 Jim Fulton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this mean that the existing 2.9 branch needs to be removed and that
the trunk remains frozen?
Didn't Florent delete the branch? Obviously he did not as I assumed.
So in this case Philipp
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the
status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my
email about Tres' bugfix, for example).
By the way, in the future, just to avoid
--On 15. November 2005 00:20:00 +0800 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the
status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 15. November 2005 00:20:00 +0800 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the
status of this branch because
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 00:20 +0800, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
BTW I'm for removing the 2.9 branch for now.
You didn't, so I presume 2.9 branch stays? It's important to clear the
status of this branch because bugfixes need to be merged to it (see my
email
Andreas Jung wrote:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/collector_contents?searching=yepSear
chableText=status%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=Acceptedstatus%3Alist%3Aignore_
empty=Pendingclassifications%3Alist%3Aignore_empty=bugimportances%3Alis
t%3Aignore_empty=critical
Ups, I got your point. I
--On 13. November 2005 20:33:01 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to
discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but
What about making the banch but calling it an alpha release?
I suspect many more people would have a chance to kick the tires if they
could download binaries.
You may find some of the critical bugs actually only occur in very
specific circumstances,
or that there are other, even more critical
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev]
Andreas Jung wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time to
discuss, investigate and fix the current bugs.
Right, right, but there must be enough people
--On 14. November 2005 02:42:31 +0100 Florent Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[Reply-To and Followup-To zope-dev]
Andreas Jung wrote:
Anyway if we want to go further we need to schedule bug days. One per
week, or something like that. Otherwise nobody will set aside the time
to discuss,
16 matches
Mail list logo
