I think the fix https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12711 might need to be applied again
Ben On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:33, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:18, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > >> OK, I will try and trust you and Sean. > > Well, it is in 30 726, but there are 2 regressions found: > > ReleaseTests.ReleaseTest.testObsoleteClasses > ReleaseTests.ReleaseTest.testUnknownProcesses > > on all 3 platforms, these might be transient, but with all the renaming > something could have gone wrong.... > >> On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:13, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.ph...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:08, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> Are the compatible ? >>>> Does one have to come before the other ? >>>> Are they both needed ? >>> >>> I think we should drop >>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12717/ReactiveVariable-NewValueHolder >>> >>> and integrate >>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12684/NewValueHolder-Enhancements >>> >>> For at least two reasons: >>> - I added hooks for Spec to continue working with the slice I proposed >>> (otherwise no more Spec fix until the release) >>> - I do not have to review it :P >>> >>> Ok maybe the second point is not that relevant LOL >>> Just that I am sure that the fix I proposed works well with Spec. >>> And I an pretty sure the other will break it :) >>> >>> I was not aware of another case related to this. >>> It is not flagged Spec nor my name, so there is no way for me to guess it >>> exists. >>> >>> Ben >> > >
