On 2015-07-28 at 19:50:47 -0500, Zakariyya Mughal wrote:
> On 2015-07-28 at 12:51:48 -0400, Chris Marshall wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Zakariyya Mughal
> > wrote:
> > As mentioned on #pdl, I think I may have an idea to improve
> > the flow of PDL releases without breaking PDL for
On 2015-07-28 at 12:51:48 -0400, Chris Marshall wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Zakariyya Mughal
> wrote:
> As mentioned on #pdl, I think I may have an idea to improve
> the flow of PDL releases without breaking PDL for new users.
> At the moment, we're in a holding pattern for the fina
On 2015-07-28 at 12:51:48 -0400, Chris Marshall wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Zakariyya Mughal
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I know we're all busy, but if the code just sits in a branch, it isn't
> > being tested and that increases the risk of failures later down the
> > road.
> >
>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Zakariyya Mughal
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know we're all busy, but if the code just sits in a branch, it isn't
> being tested and that increases the risk of failures later down the
> road.
>
Per my previous response, the delays were due to sf.net outage
and lack of
As far as I know, we had decided on #pdl to merge in sf390 but were held up
due to the sf.net storage outage. The Changes changes seem ok too.
Once they are in master, we can determine where/what conditions need
the warning we had discussed.
--Chris
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Zakariyya Mu
Hello,
I know we're all busy, but if the code just sits in a branch, it isn't
being tested and that increases the risk of failures later down the
road.
I'd like to get these changes out at least in the form of a dev release.
That way all interested parties can get access to fixes and we can get
f
