On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Christopher Arndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
Sorry, I should have made my motivation clearer. It's not that any of these are showstoppers, it's just that I want to show the people who are submitting good patches the appreciation they deserve, by getting their changes committed. I'm leaning toward just 1.1/1.5 for all of these. -Ken --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
