I just wonder if the internal functions would “miss” this release. At least, an important change especially (bug fixes) in the "record-merge" function would be nice to have in this release. I believe the current version of this function in the master only supports closed records and will fail when used with open records…
Best, -heri > On Aug 25, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's kind of what I assumed as well until this afternoon. Taewoo tried > merging the candidate changes, and it was unexpectedly difficult. As it > turns out, there's some special ugliness that can be encountered if one > tries to merge in some usually sane ways (mainly just 'git merge master' or > similar, Chris found that 'git gerrit update' is more likely to be > cleaner). I'll summarize what Chris and I found in another mail. > > - Ian > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm wondering if those merges really have to be bad. It seems that most >> changes in the source files would be in the imports and thus there wouldn't >> be too many conflicts with "regular" code changes. >> Is that right or am I missing an important point? >> Did you try those merges? >> >> Thanks, >> Till >> >>> On Aug 24, 2015, at 18:47, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hey everyone, >>> Just as a reminder, please hold off on submitting things to master (or at >>> least ask here if you'd prefer) so we can get the release out. Right now >>> all the features are in but I'm still discussing with Chris and Taewoo >>> about how to best address the really ugly merges for open branches that >>> will come out from changing the package from edu.uci.ics to org.apache. >> If >>> we submit other patches while still trying to figure this out it makes >>> things harder than necessary. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> - Ian >>
