+1 on the release as is.
On 2013-03-08, Antoine Levy Lambert wrote:
> You can veto the release if it matters that much to you and I would
> then have to drop and recreate the 1.9.0 label and do a new build.
Maybe I'm picking nits: you can't veto a release, this is a majority
vote.
Stefan
-
On 2013-03-08, Jesse Glick wrote:
> Third, why are we still using Subversion when we could be using Git
> [1]?
Because we never talked about moving, I guess. :-)
> Apache makes us keep the “official” repo on git.apache.org. That is
> lame, especially given the existence of CLAHub [2];
I disagre
On 2013-03-07, Erik Smith wrote:
> Hi ant developers. I'm working on an extension for better C++ support and
> I'm wondering if there is any kind of hook that can get executed after
> targets are executed but earlier than buildFinished, which generates the
> "BUILD SUCCESSFUL" output.
targetFin
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2013-03-07, Erik Smith wrote:
>
> > Hi ant developers. I'm working on an extension for better C++ support
> and
> > I'm wondering if there is any kind of hook that can get executed after
> > targets are executed but earlier than buildFi
> > Third, why are we still using Subversion when we could be using Git
> > [1]?
>
> Because we never talked about moving, I guess. :-)
Yes, I think that's the reason.
Another point could be, that each contributor could use git-svn for accessing
the official repository.
It's not "the full Git po
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
