On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Adrian Buehlmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04.01.2009 10:38, TK Soh wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Zorba <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Thanks guys, I think it was me who opened up the discussion on the mercurial >>> users list, at the same time as I wrote this post. This post has only just >>> appeared here even though I wrote it a few days ago (got held up waiting for >>> me to authorise membership). >>> >>> Thanks for that - I'll wait for THg 0.6 and may decide to convert the 1.1.x >>> repo's back in the meantime if it looks like it will be a while. >> >> If possible, we hope to release 0.6 within the two weeks. It should be >> linked to the newly released Mercurial 1.1.2. > > That sounds great. > > Maybe http://hg.intevation.org/mercurial/crew-stable/rev/f1af59451c0c > should be considered for inclusion in Thg 0.6. > > f1af59451c0c fixes > http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/bts/issue1433 > which has 'critical' priority. > > f1af59451c0c seems to fix a bug that seems to have been introduced with the > refactoring http://hg.intevation.org/mercurial/crew-stable/rev/716a1296e182 > > However, I'm not sure if it's really that critical.
If it is, then Matt would push another release soon. We will see what happens in the next week of two, when 0.6 is ready. > BTW, thanks a lot for not releasing 1.1 (which contains bug > http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/bts/issue1417 committed by idiot me -- is > fixed in 1.1.1). No problem. It just gave us more time to work on few more issues ;-) > 1.1 was a pretty big step by the way... Indeed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
