Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
>> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>> I'm in favor the "subtractive" approach, with an RC over this weekend,
>>> and 1.5.0 7-10 days after that. I think that is a reasonable point on
>>> the delay-vs-bugfixes curve. In other words, unless people complain
>>> loudly, that's what is going to happen. :) I'll let the community
>>> figure out what to subtract, but I think we're almost there already.
>> Subtractive approach sounds good to me. Below is a list of all changes
>> merged to the 1.5.x branch since RC5 (but with all the STATUS noise
>> filtered out). I propose the following be subtracted before 1.5.0:
> I have reverse merged these three and am going to run the tests.
> Doing them in reverse order as shown caused STATUS to merge cleanly
> (one trivial conflict) and put the items back into the Approved
> If the tests all pass is it OK if I just commit this to the branch?
I would annotate the STATUS items so one of us doesn't later forget that,
though approved, we *don't* want to re-merge those revisions this side of
1.5.0-final. But besides that, +1 to commit.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-05-23 16:16:00 CEST