On 08/23/2011 05:57 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 23.08.2011 21:21, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:03:15PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: >>>> I wonder if it even makes sense to fix this case for upgrade. After all, >>>> we could just tell users to unlock files before upgrading their working >>>> copies. >>> Do you mean that it doesn't need to be fixed, ever? >>> Or that this isn't a critical fix to have in the .0 release? >> >> It isn't critical to fix in the .0 release and not a good enough reason >> to scrap RC1. I'd hesitate to call it a release blocker, after all, >> there's a perfectly good workaround, and AFAIU not the only limitation >> of the upgrader. > > Good points. > > At this point, I'm ready to run with the consensus, whatever that is.
Same here. My original post made the assumption that this problem was already deemed a blocker (per Bert's vote and the IRC discussion I /join'd in the middle of). But if it isn't and Bert will reverse his -1, let's move on. -- C. Michael Pilato <[email protected]> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
