LGTM. Should we freeze new commits to 1.6 until the rest of this shakes out?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Freeland Abbott < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is going to make our next 1.6 -> trunk merge mildly unpleasant, but we > need the 1.6 fixes at c4298 and c4299 'cause we're seeing them in the trunk, > but want minimal other changes until we're sure the current mess around the > confluence of event updates, hosted mode, war mode, AND oophm have settled. > (Can we institute a one-a-week or one-a-fortnight policy for "big" merges? > I trust tests, but I trust tests-and-shakeout-time more... and Issac, > here's a case where we *are* hiding something; I can't cite the code that's > gotten messy: it's not GWT's code, and it's not open source.) > Attached patch is meant to replicate 1.6 4298:4299, only, onto trunk. > > Note, in a similar messy-merge bit, that trunk c4266 also needs to > down-merge at some point. > > -- "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
