On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > with differing hashes), this
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner
> > wrote:
>
> > with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
> > and/or quite some extra work when
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:52:48 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
>
> Doesn't everything need to be merged into master eventually anyway? It
> seems to me that unless it's a change that very narrowly targeting an
> issue in a release branch that is not an issue in master, every patch
> will
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that at least the release
> candidates (basically anything tagged on branch release) ought to be
> merged back to master. Since any series of bugfix patches seems to be
> cause for a new
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner
> > wrote:
>
> > with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
> > and/or quite some extra work when
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that at least the release
candidates (basically anything tagged on branch release) ought to be
merged back to master. Since any series of bugfix patches seems to be
cause for
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:52:48 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Doesn't everything need to be merged into master eventually anyway? It
seems to me that unless it's a change that very narrowly targeting an
issue in a release branch that is not an issue in master,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner
> wrote:
> with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
> and/or quite some extra work when debugging using git-bisect(1), so
> I'd like to propose that bugfixes
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> It turns out that our existing (trivial) python test is enough to
> catch this bug, but the corpus needs to be augmented. This
> augmentation is a bit intrusive so I'm thinking of cherry-picking only
> the actual fix to the release
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote:
with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion
and/or quite some extra work when debugging using git-bisect(1), so
I'd like
It turns out that our existing (trivial) python test is enough to
catch this bug, but the corpus needs to be augmented. This
augmentation is a bit intrusive so I'm thinking of cherry-picking only
the actual fix to the release branch.
Unfortunately the test message is 8 bit, so it may be encoded
It turns out that our existing (trivial) python test is enough to
catch this bug, but the corpus needs to be augmented. This
augmentation is a bit intrusive so I'm thinking of cherry-picking only
the actual fix to the release branch.
Unfortunately the test message is 8 bit, so it may be encoded
15 matches
Mail list logo
