On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:59:53AM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
While the upload of pytz seems harmless, I would prefer to follow ZTK
1.1.2 versions (unless Gediminas disagrees of course), which suggests
pytz 2011g (even if it's just
2011/9/17 Arnaud Fontaine ar...@debian.org:
Hi,
I have checked on difference of 2011h from 2010b:
* API changes are minimal and seems to be backward compatible *
primarily it is an update of timezones information
I saw no harm of updating unstable with it, so I did a sloppy uupdate,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:45:45PM +0300, Gediminas Paulauskas wrote:
2011/9/17 Arnaud Fontaine ar...@debian.org:
Hi,
I have checked on difference of 2011h from 2010b:
* API changes are minimal and seems to be backward compatible *
primarily it is an update of timezones
Hi,
I have checked on difference of 2011h from 2010b:
* API changes are minimal and seems to be backward compatible *
primarily it is an update of timezones information
I saw no harm of updating unstable with it, so I did a sloppy uupdate,
cloned original bugreport to leave 3k
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
While the upload of pytz seems harmless, I would prefer to follow ZTK
1.1.2 versions (unless Gediminas disagrees of course), which suggests
pytz 2011g (even if it's just a small change).
as far as I see it -- there is no code change
I have checked on difference of 2011h from 2010b:
* API changes are minimal and seems to be backward compatible
* primarily it is an update of timezones information
I saw no harm of updating unstable with it, so I did a sloppy uupdate,
cloned original bugreport to leave 3k compatibility on TODO
6 matches
Mail list logo