Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the weekend,
I'll do it to keep good issue tracking.
Paul
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the weekend,
I'll do it
+1
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any objections to marking the 2.0.10 issues also for 2.1 and
3.0? I can do a batch update with no email notice. Let me know. I am
in no hurry to make the change. If I see no objections by the
Is the +1 to Paul or to Wendy? :)
What I understand the current situation to be:
* things fixed in both 2.0.10 and 2.1.0 are marked in both
* these do not automatically apply to 3.0 since it's now to hard to
merge a lot of them so it'll be brought to backwards compat via ITs
* in the event
I think it's proper issue management to label all issues for their
respective fixes. Otherwise, what are you going to do when you have
issues just for one branch? Some issues are also just for trunk and
not backported.
I think we should have a rule: if you commit to multiple places, the
issue
I updated the 2.0.10 issues today, so I *think* it's all up to date.
Brett Porter wrote:
Is the +1 to Paul or to Wendy? :)
What I understand the current situation to be:
* things fixed in both 2.0.10 and 2.1.0 are marked in both
* these do not automatically apply to 3.0 since it's now to hard
Awesome. Thanks John!
Paul
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:47 PM, John Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I updated the 2.0.10 issues today, so I *think* it's all up to date.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
