Re: please accept zope-testcase 0.9.6

2005-05-19 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 06:15:21PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.19.0900 +0200]: > > Your merge of 305937 with 309691 makes no sense. 305937 was > > reported against 0.9.6-2, which is the current version in > > unstable. What's going on he

Re: please accept zope-testcase 0.9.6

2005-05-19 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.19.0900 +0200]: > Your merge of 305937 with 309691 makes no sense. 305937 was > reported against 0.9.6-2, which is the current version in > unstable. What's going on here? Uh, I am not sure at all. I have a .upload file which says that the

Re: please accept zope-testcase 0.9.6

2005-05-19 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:06:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > Adrian Bunk's "friendly" reminders (#309691) led me to realise that > zope-testcase had not propagated and does in fact use the non-free > python-profiler package. Version 0.9.6 fixes this. Please let it in. > I do note that 0.9.6

please accept zope-testcase 0.9.6

2005-05-18 Thread martin f krafft
Adrian Bunk's "friendly" reminders (#309691) led me to realise that zope-testcase had not propagated and does in fact use the non-free python-profiler package. Version 0.9.6 fixes this. Please let it in. I do note that 0.9.6 differs from 0.9.0 in upstream version, maintainer, and some patches to r