On 1/1/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/1/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> More generally, I propose we have the following procedure for future
> releases:
>
> (1) At the appropriate time, the RM declares a code freeze on the
> relevant branch
> (2) Developm
On 1/1/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/1/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The SHALE_1_0_X branch [1] has been created. Over the next day, it
> > will be used to prepare the proposed v1.0.4 artifacts an
On 1/1/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/1/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The SHALE_1_0_X branch [1] has been created. Over the next day, it
> will be used to prepare the proposed v1.0.4 artifacts and svn tag.
>
> My preference would be to have no commits to t
On 1/1/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The SHALE_1_0_X branch [1] has been created. Over the next day, it
will be used to prepare the proposed v1.0.4 artifacts and svn tag.
My preference would be to have no commits to the branch when releases
are being prepared and voted on (releva