Re: Ruby test failure

From: Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org>
Date: 2006-03-17 22:47:49 CET

[Peter N. Lundblad]
> Does this mean r18924 should be proposed for backport together with
> the other swig 1.3.28 proposals and nominated for 1.3.2?

Yes (I've already added it to our Debian builds), but I'd wait before
voting +1 until someone figures out why svk breaks
(http://bugs.debian.org/356894). clkao and I are both trying to find
time to look at this. Unfortunately, I'm not very qualified, not being
an expert in either libsvn or swig, so I can't promise much.

\\Peter

application/pgp-signature attachment: Digital signature

Received on Fri Mar 17 22:48:10 2006

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Ben Collins-Sussman: "Re: Testing 1.3.x on really old box"
Previous message: John Peacock: "Re: Testing 1.3.x on really old box"
In reply to: Peter N. Lundblad: "Re: Ruby test failure"
Next in thread: Malcolm Rowe: "Re: Ruby test failure"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]