From: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not asking about why 1 patch was provided (which I agree is really
useful
for testing) but on why the STATUS change doesn't instead list all patches
that are needed (at least from my initial merge attempts based on your
instructions
Just a note that I've added a backport proposal for bugzilla ID#206
into the 3.1.x branch STATUS file. This is a split from #193. I've
consolidated several patches from trunk into a single patch, and
posted it. Please review, test and vote.
--
Jesse Becker
GPG Fingerprint -- BD00 7AA4 4483
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 01:14:32PM -0400, Jesse Becker wrote:
Just a note that I've added a backport proposal for bugzilla ID#206
into the 3.1.x branch STATUS file.
great, since Timothy did most of the work for it, I am sure he will be
interested in commenting about it so inlining the path
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:33, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 01:14:32PM -0400, Jesse Becker wrote:
I've
consolidated several patches from trunk into a single patch, and
posted it. Please review, test and vote.
was just looking at that and I have
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 01:49:37PM -0400, Jesse Becker wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:33, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 01:14:32PM -0400, Jesse Becker wrote:
couldn't just a merge from all relevant patches in trunk be used for
backport?,
