Den tors 7 apr. 2022 kl 13:43 skrev Julian Foad :
> TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature
> ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week?
>
> As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision
> for Subversion and large binary objects.", n
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:43:03 +0100:
> TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature
> ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week?
>
> As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision
> for Subversion and large binary obje
Nathan Hartman wrote:
> The branch worked for me when I last tested it and I saw no glaring
> issues so I have no objections to merging it soon. That said, I would
> encourage, if at all feasible, that we try to do two things first:
> decouple the format 32 and pod525 feature, and decide what the
>
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:43 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature
> ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week?
>
> As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision
> for Subversion and large binary objects.",
TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature
('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week?
As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision
for Subversion and large binary objects.", next steps are reviewing and
handling the outstanding issues,
5 matches
Mail list logo
