Yes http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2282
On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > Usually I put the 1.1 tag on items I integrated in 1.0 and I didn't close the > issues so they are not lost. The only one I remember that we may also want to > integrate is the network rollback. Not sure what the plan is there. But it > doesn't seem anybody is working on a better implementation so I suggest we > also roll back in 1.1. > > Adrian > > On Apr 7, 2010, at 14:20 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse >> <stephane.duca...@inria.fr>wrote: >> >>> Hi Adrian >>> >>> Once 1.0 is released we should check that all the fixes that went in 1.0 >>> after the fork to 1.1 are integrated in 1.1. >>> >> >> The problem is how we can identify them ? >> I only remember >> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1841 >> but it even is different in 1.1 >> >> Ahh maybe also the NetNameResolver problem ? >> >> >>> Would be nice also to remove the testsexpected to break so that we give >>> them a chance to be fixed in 1.1. >>> >>> >> Good idea. >> >> >>> Stef >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project