Re: Moving on to 3.0.4

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Michael Parker writes:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:41:16AM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > 
> > But otherwise, I agree with Warren completely.  I wanted to get the patch
> > in for 3.0.3 because it was trivial and the release wasn't complete at
> > that point in time.  Now, however, the release has been completed and
> > there isn't anything else compelling us to do a 3.0.4 at this point.
> 
> I had already made the the 3.0.3 tarballs available for testing at
> least a half hour before I received the initial mail from Bugzilla for
> 4287.  40 mins later you expressed a desire to get 4287 into the 3.0
> branch, well you said 3.0.3 but that ship had already sailed.  So if
> it falls to 3.0.4, no big deal, we vote, the patch is committed, and
> we do it all over again for 3.0.4.
> 
> Consider the 3.0.3 release gone, so the same things that compelled the
> 3.0.3 release are in place for 3.0.4.  Have you changed your mind about
> getting 4287 into the 3.0 branch?

I'm with Theo on this one -- I by no means consider 4287 a worthwhile
reason to go to the bother of cutting a 3.0.4.  and it *is* a bother!

4287 can get checked into the 3.0 branch, just in case there's something
in the future.  but it's by no means urgent.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFCcRqTMJF5cimLx9ARAtZnAKCx5FDO3p9/jhHGWHgCNYnaR4oODACgojG2
w7baFBTVMnA86qnlGBywIX8=
=r5H2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Moving on to 3.0.4

[Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 10:17:07AM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> 
> I'm with Theo on this one -- I by no means consider 4287 a worthwhile
> reason to go to the bother of cutting a 3.0.4.  and it *is* a bother!
> 
> 4287 can get checked into the 3.0 branch, just in case there's something
> in the future.  but it's by no means urgent.
> 

Then why the hell was such a big deal made over it yesterday?

Michael