On 13/12/10 03:56, Michael Biebl wrote:
Hi!
Hi there,
2010/12/10 Martyn Russell:
* build: Binaries built now use *stable* named versions only (i.e. 0.10 not
0.9)
So, 0.9.31 is not declared stable yet, but you already use the stable
version names. That's a bit confusing.
Could you elabora
2010/12/13 Martyn Russell :
> On 13/12/10 03:56, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> 2010/12/10 Martyn Russell:
>>>
>>> * build: Binaries built now use *stable* named versions only (i.e. 0.10
>>> not
>>> 0.9)
>>
>> So, 0.9.31 is not declared stable yet, but you already use the stable
>> version names. That's
On 13/12/10 14:27, Michael Biebl wrote:
2010/12/13 Martyn Russell:
On 13/12/10 03:56, Michael Biebl wrote:
2010/12/10 Martyn Russell:
* build: Binaries built now use *stable* named versions only (i.e. 0.10
not
0.9)
So, 0.9.31 is not declared stable yet, but you already use the stable
vers
Hi,
I'm still wondering though, if functional-tests being enabled by
>> *default* is a good idea.
>>
>
> Probably not actually. I am happy to change this, Ivan and others, do you
> have a comment here?
>
No problem as long as everybody writing code have them enabled and run them
before any merge
