On Nov 10, 10:17 am, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi folks,
>
> > I haven't been bitten by the "do not use" revisions, R1089 onward, but
> > it seems that others have.
>
> > I'm just curious why the team decided not to use
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll also add that I didn't check in something that didn't run, just
> something that contains changes that require changes to your code or
> environment. Tracking SVN HEAD certainly implies a willingness to make
> such ch
On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:46 AM, "Graham Fawcett"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I haven't been bitten by the "do not use" revisions, R1089 onward, but
> it seems that others have.
>
> I'm just curious why the team decided not to use a branch for these
> breaking changes, and mergin
On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I haven't been bitten by the "do not use" revisions, R1089 onward, but
> it seems that others have.
>
> I'm just curious why the team decided not to use a branch for these
> breaking changes, and merging back with trunk once th
Hi folks,
I haven't been bitten by the "do not use" revisions, R1089 onward, but
it seems that others have.
I'm just curious why the team decided not to use a branch for these
breaking changes, and merging back with trunk once the breakage was
finished?
Like many open-source projects, Clojure s
