Hi all,
I'd like to propose an upgrade for Python to version 3.3.2. The
current version (3.3.0) seems to have a bug that triggers in the game
engine when loading a second or third game file [1]. This may be
system-specific: it doesn't happen on my computer, but it does happen
on a friend's, with t
Eh, I thought we already were on py3.3.2 (installdeps is , at least)? I
mean, mini-updates of python are bug-fixes only, so we should always
use the latest, imho? But indeed svn libs are older (we even still have
some py3.2!)… Not to be done before 2.69 is released, for sure! ;)
And py3.4 is co
Every update on the release build environment is pretty much dangerous.
Linker things are breaking pretty much easy.
I'm fine with updating py to 3.2.2 after today's release, but would suggest
make no changes to release builders now.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Bastien Montagne wrote:
> E
Yesterday we talked about just 1 or 2 one-liners, and now it's getting
more.
In this case we maybe should consider doing a RC3...
Also, we should only backport regressions. Is 60774 a regression?
Am 21.10.2013 14:41, schrieb Antony Riakiotakis:
> Hey Campbell, could you merge 60774 as well?
>
>
My point here is, that we agreed on doing proper proper Release
Candidates and Release now.
I don't mind a small one-liner, in this case we could risk it.
But since RC2 we had 60845, 60871 and 60875 with backports...also not
all of them seem to be really showstopper bugs?
I know we have a lot
I would strictly recommend stop backporting fixes for a not-a-regression
but to release branch. 60774 is a fix for 36905 which is not a regression.
It is NOT to be merged.
And strictly speaking 60766 should have not been merged. Not as if is to be
reverted, but next time one merged not-a-regressio
For the record, if we decide to do RC3 instead of release (which I'd
find more sensible now), I will also backport two oneliners - both are
full secure, and one is a fix for a new 2.69 feature (not sure this has
same status as regression?): 60857 and 60858.
On 21/10/2013 15:26, Sergey Sharybin
I've merged r60756 + r60763 now.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Sergey Sharybin wrote:
> Hrm, bummer.
>
> Seems to be rather simple one-liner. perhaps could be merged. Brecht, what
> would you say?
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, IRIE Shinsuke
> wrote:
>
>> This is actually a regression
>From latest discussions on IRC, conclusion is this:
* We will do an RC3 as the changes in this commit are non-trivial and
fix regressions.
* Some other minor fixes were committed, but we will not be merging
more fixes to the 2.69 release branch unless there is a very good
reason for them.
* RC3 a
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:33:07PM +0200, Bastien Montagne wrote:
> For the record, if we decide to do RC3 instead of release (which I'd
> find more sensible now), I will also backport two oneliners - both are
> full secure, and one is a fix for a new 2.69 feature (not sure this has
> same statu
Hi,
Hope it is the last RC before actual 2.69 release,
Information for platform maintainers:
tag: blender-2.69-release
tag revision: 60882
addons revision: 4812
locale revision: 2442
Let me know when the builds are up.
--
With best regards, Sergey Sharybin
_
Windows builds are here: http://blender.dingto.org/Blender269_RC3/
Am 21.10.2013 18:00, schrieb Sergey Sharybin:
> Hi,
>
> Hope it is the last RC before actual 2.69 release,
>
> Information for platform maintainers:
> tag: blender-2.69-release
> tag revision: 60882
> addons revision: 4812
> locale
They're now in our ftp. Seems all the builds are up and we're ready for
announcement?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Thomas Dinges wrote:
> Windows builds are here: http://blender.dingto.org/Blender269_RC3/
>
> Am 21.10.2013 18:00, schrieb Sergey Sharybin:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hope it is the last
13 matches
Mail list logo
