Le 31/12/2010 16:07, Dave Page a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Actually, I take it back.
>>
>> The CHANGELOG on the REL-1_12_PATCHES has some changes for 1.12.1,
>> 1.12.2, 1.12.3. And surprisingly enough also 1.14.0, which certainly
>> didn't exist back then
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 16:07, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Actually, I take it back.
>>>
>>> The CHANGELOG on the REL-1_12_PATCHES has some changes for 1.12.1,
>>> 1.12.2, 1.12.3. And su
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 16:07, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Actually, I take it back.
>>
>> The CHANGELOG on the REL-1_12_PATCHES has some changes for 1.12.1,
>> 1.12.2, 1.12.3. And surprisingly enough also 1.14.0, which certainly
>> didn't exist b
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Actually, I take it back.
>
> The CHANGELOG on the REL-1_12_PATCHES has some changes for 1.12.1,
> 1.12.2, 1.12.3. And surprisingly enough also 1.14.0, which certainly
> didn't exist back then...
Yes - we've done it that way for years.
>
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:59, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:53, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but it requires significant manual filtering *now* to produce it
>>> as well.
>>
>> No, it requires 30 seconds per commi
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 15:53, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but it requires significant manual filtering *now* to produce it
>> as well.
>
> No, it requires 30 seconds per commit that is worthy of mention.
> Dropping the changelog will mean
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> Yes, but it requires significant manual filtering *now* to produce it
> as well.
No, it requires 30 seconds per commit that is worthy of mention.
Dropping the changelog will mean that work gets pushed to me (or
Guillaume) to do immediate
Le 31/12/2010 10:52, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 02:30, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> wrote:
>>> No to trac reports as they ain't complete now. Dave and I talked about
>>> that in Stuttgart, and we decided that quick bugs to fix
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 02:30, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
>> No to trac reports as they ain't complete now. Dave and I talked about
>> that in Stuttgart, and we decided that quick bugs to fix won't have a
>> trac ticket. We'll only use trac's bu
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> No to trac reports as they ain't complete now. Dave and I talked about
> that in Stuttgart, and we decided that quick bugs to fix won't have a
> trac ticket. We'll only use trac's bugtracker to keep track of unfixed bugs.
>
> I would be m
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:49, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 30/12/2010 18:33, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:29, Guillaume Lelarge
>> wrote:
>>> Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge
wrote:
> Le ve
Le 30/12/2010 18:33, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:29, Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
>> Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge
>>> wrote:
Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 18:29, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge
>> wrote:
>>> Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu
Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
>> Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
Lelarge wrote:
>>
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
>> >
>> > Lelarge wrote:
>> >> Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit
Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
> >
> > Lelarge wrote:
> >> Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit :
> >>> Why are trac tickets being created for the recent chan
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
> Lelarge wrote:
>> Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit :
>>> Why are trac tickets being created for the recent change history?
>>> That's what the changelog and svn history is for...
>>
>> Ye
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
Lelarge wrote:
> Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit :
>> Why are trac tickets being created for the recent change history?
>> That's what the changelog and svn history is for...
>
> Yes. I created them to try to use the roadmap system. See
Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit :
> Why are trac tickets being created for the recent change history?
> That's what the changelog and svn history is for...
Yes. I created them to try to use the roadmap system. See this:
http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/roadmap
and this:
http
19 matches
Mail list logo
