On 9/19/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/19/06, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of
> > course 0.90 is easier to get to, but if more developers are coding on
> > 0.91, then maybe I'll try to catch that.
>
> Well, if you can point me at bugs that need to be fixed in
On 9/19/06, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like neither branch is particularly lively just now. I'm
> trying to decide whether to catch up to 0.90 or 0.91 from r1338. Of
> course 0.90 is easier to get to, but if more developers are coding on
> 0.91, then maybe I'll try to
On 8/12/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I've set up a 0.91-bugfixes branch and given you commit access. Have at
> it!
>
It looks like neither branch is particularly lively just now. I'm
trying to decide whether to catch up to 0.90 or 0.91 from r1338. Of
course 0.90 is
On 8/12/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > James, assuming you agree with these goals, are you volunteering to
> > maintain the branch? :-)
>
> If that's what it takes, then yeah :)
OK, I've set up a 0.91-bugfixes branch and given you commit access. Have at it!
Adrian
--
Adrian
On 8/11/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as it's strictly bug fixes, and no feature additions, that
> sounds fine by me. The reason I say "no feature additions" is that it
> wouldn't be in our best interest to have another competing branch, as
> we did with magic-removal
On 8/11/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as it's strictly bug fixes, and no feature additions, that
> sounds fine by me. The reason I say "no feature additions" is that it
> wouldn't be in our best interest to have another competing branch, as
> we did with magic-removal
On 8/11/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I just lost about an hour of my life to dealing with a problem
> in pre-m-r Django which had a fix in Trac that was never applied
> (ticket #1113 for those who are interested), I'm suddenly intensely
> curious about the possibility of
On 8/11/06, Deryck Hodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know at NDN we're going to be pre-mr for the foreseeable future (and
> probably all of Scripps, too). Even if not an actual release, just
> compiling a set of patches known to be useful for those on pre-mr
> releases would be nice.
+1 from
On 8/11/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Back when the magic-removal branch was still going, there were plans
> to roll up a bunch of bugfixes against pre-m-r Django (e.g., 0.91) and
> do a '0.92' or some other form of final release for the old-style
> Django.
>
> Since I just
