| To: | Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] pcp updates |
| From: | Mark Goodwin <goodwinos@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:57:53 +1100 |
| Cc: | Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <489404631.5291255040787305.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <489404631.5291255040787305.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) |
Nathan Scott wrote: Are there any of these that you think are critical for 3.0 Max? We have run a fair bit of QA on the current bits & deployed them to quite a few test machines here, so unless there is something pressing hiding in here, I'm thinking we should off for a 3.0.1 for these... is that OK? Yes, I'd agree - this has come in during "phase-R". But let's hear from Max. IMO we are ready to release 3.0. So merge 3.0.0-8 from dev to master and tag both branches. Any objections? Then we can bump dev to 3.0.1-1 and pull in Max's changes and start a new QA cycle. Cheers -- Mark |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Timezones and archive rotation, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] pcp updates, Ken McDonell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] pcp updates, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] pcp updates, Ken McDonell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |