On 03/31/2013 06:27 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net writes:
with 3.2.4 being the last regular 3.2 maintenance release and the rc out
of the door, the 3.2 branch should only be committed to for security
releases. So please don't commit anything there anymore. To help
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/03/13 08:55, Georg Brandl wrote:
with 3.2.4 being the last regular 3.2 maintenance release and the
rc out of the door, the 3.2 branch should only be committed to for
security releases. So please don't commit anything there anymore.
To help
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:41:39 +0100, Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 28/03/13 08:55, Georg Brandl wrote:
with 3.2.4 being the last regular 3.2 maintenance release and the
rc out of the door, the 3.2 branch should only be committed to for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30/03/13 15:15, R. David Murray wrote:
This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own
head). So I don't believe we have articulated a procedure yet.
I am
On 03/30/2013 04:10 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
On 30/03/13 15:15, R. David Murray wrote:
This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own
head). So I don't believe we have articulated a procedure yet.
I am asking
In article 20130330141534.44893250...@webabinitio.net,
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own head).
3.1?
--
Ned Deily,
n...@acm.org
Le samedi 30 mars 2013 à 10:13 -0700, Ned Deily a écrit :
In article 20130330141534.44893250...@webabinitio.net,
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
security-only branch in Mercurial (other than 2.7, which is its own
On 03/30/2013 06:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le samedi 30 mars 2013 à 10:13 -0700, Ned Deily a écrit :
In article 20130330141534.44893250...@webabinitio.net,
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
This is the first time we've been in the situation of having a
security-only branch in
On Mar 30, 2013, at 06:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Or 2.6?
Right, but no one should really be committing to 2.6 without at least checking
with me first. FWIW, I still merge from 2.6 to 2.7 if appropriate, but given
that there's only one more 2.6 release planned at all, this is a very rare
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi all,
with 3.2.4 being the last regular 3.2 maintenance release and the rc out
of the door, the 3.2 branch should only be committed to for security
releases. So please don't commit anything there anymore. To help
10 matches
Mail list logo
