Re: Deletion of related objects

2009-04-12 Thread bo
On Apr 9, 5:04 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick > > wrote: > > >> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 14:48 -0500, Jeremy Dunck

Re: Deletion of related objects

2009-04-09 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick > wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 14:48 -0500, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > ... >>> I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope

Re: Deletion of related objects

2009-03-31 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 14:48 -0500, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > Malcolm, Jacob pointed me at you, since the code in question was a > commit around QSRF-time. > > I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope narrower > and ask the hopefully-useful question-- is #9308 a bug? If so, I'd

Re: Deletion of related objects

2009-03-31 Thread bo blanton
On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > > Malcolm, Jacob pointed me at you, since the code in question was a > commit around QSRF-time. > > I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope narrower > and ask the hopefully-useful question-- is #9308 a bug? If so, I'd >

Deletion of related objects

2009-03-31 Thread Jeremy Dunck
Malcolm, Jacob pointed me at you, since the code in question was a commit around QSRF-time. I'm aware of ticket #7539, but would prefer to keep the scope narrower and ask the hopefully-useful question-- is #9308 a bug? If so, I'd like to close it for 1.1. In summary, #9308 describes a