Okay, I'm good with that.
--
Mark Miesfeld
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> yeah, we can do the back copy on a doc-by-doc basis when the time comes.
> I'm ok with that. I might even try doing a merge first rather than a
> replacement to maintain the update histories.
>
yeah, we can do the back copy on a doc-by-doc basis when the time comes.
I'm ok with that. I might even try doing a merge first rather than a
replacement to maintain the update histories.
Rick
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Mark Miesfeld wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Rick McG
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> Maintaining both trunk and 4.2.0 branches of the docs are starting to
> become a bit of a pain given the number of updates. David only updated the
> 4.2.0 branch for his inheritance table work, so they are already out of
> sync. I propose t
Maintaining both trunk and 4.2.0 branches of the docs are starting to
become a bit of a pain given the number of updates. David only updated the
4.2.0 branch for his inheritance table work, so they are already out of
sync. I propose that for now, we only update the 4.2.0 branch, and then
copy tha
