Christian Boos wrote: > Felix Schwarz wrote: > >> May I suggest also including #8240? The one-line fix I gave in the >> ticket should be enough - at least for issue reported in the ticket. >> > > Sure, that one was part of the "(e.g. #8358, #8283, #8378, this kind)" > list ;-) >
Oh sorry, when writing the above, I had #8340 in mind, not #8240 (soo many tickets, so few digits...). #8240 looked a bit more complex last time I looked at it, but if you're confident the fix is enough... In all cases, a few unit tests here would definitely help, both for making the issue easier to understand and for giving us more confidence on maintaining your patch (er, code change suggestion here, as there's no patch ;-) ). > I'll wait a bit more for feedback about the proposed move of the 0.11.6 > tickets to 0.12.1, in case someone has a better idea. After that I'll > move the 0.11.5 tickets to 0.11.6 and put back those I think we can > still complete for 0.11.5. At that point, things will be clearer. > It's done now. All: feel free to go through the 0.11.6 list and move back the tickets you think you can finish up this week. If you think a given ticket is really important to get fixed for 0.11.5 but you're not sure you can do it yourself this week, please speak up on the list as well. -- Christian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
