Ken Kuhlman schrieb: > Sounds good to me! There's a few minor tickets with patches that I > want to apply [2], but I'll get that done today.
1764: +1 on the general issue, but -1 on the implementation (see my ticket comment). 1783: Already applied, tests needed. 1891: +1, test needed. 1892: looks good, but patch needs some minor fixes, see my ticket comments. test needed. 1903: Should be reviewed by a French native-speaker, then +1 > I'm tempted to apply the CatWalk patches as well. Any complaints? > They are 349, 589, and 701. Where? In the 1.0 branch or in TG 1.1/1.5? Or all? 349: a comment indicates that this patch doesn't apply cleanly anymore. Do you have an updated patch? I don't see this a important enough to hold back a 1.0.x release. In my vision, the whole toolbox should be extracted into a (or several) separate package(s) anyway. 589: basically the same comments apply 701: +1 patch looks good, the issue small, well documented and there is a test. If the test case still fails with the current 1.0 branch HEAD and the patch makes it pass, I#m for it. Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
