Hmm, what did Alex post a while back? Can't say I really follow what
you are saying.
Darren
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
> +1
>
> Side note, you're doing some automated code cleanup as well. Pretty nice, but
> did you sync the cleanup settings with the ones Alex post
+1
Side note, you're doing some automated code cleanup as well. Pretty nice, but
did you sync the cleanup settings with the ones Alex posted a while back? We
wouldn't want conflicting autocleanup settings battling for supremacy.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 okt. 2013, at 06:21, Darren Shepher
I plan to merge this wed morning unless I or others find issues.
Darren
> On Oct 17, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Darren Shepherd
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
>> Maybe just mark start() as deprecated then. Would at least put a marker for
>> anybody writing new
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
> Maybe just mark start() as deprecated then. Would at least put a marker for
> anybody writing new code that they should think again about using it.
Good idea.
>
> A unit test would be really nice to have for this piece of code. Especiall
Sent from my iPhone
> On 17 okt. 2013, at 20:12, Darren Shepherd
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2013 01:53 AM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
>> Hey Darren,
>>
>> Looking through the code it looks like this more an API change than an
>> actual redesign of the transaction code? I like the resulting code a lo
On 10/17/2013 01:53 AM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
Hey Darren,
Looking through the code it looks like this more an API change than an actual
redesign of the transaction code? I like the resulting code a lot better than
the existing way of doing it. As far as i can see you wrapped the existing
Tran
Hey Darren,
Looking through the code it looks like this more an API change than an actual
redesign of the transaction code? I like the resulting code a lot better than
the existing way of doing it. As far as i can see you wrapped the existing
TransactionLegacy way of doing it (txn.start / txn.c
On Oct 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Darren Shepherd
wrote:
> How do these merge emails work? Do I just wait and certain amount of time
> and if nobody says no I just do it? I've tested the branch as much as I'd
> like, so just waiting for input.
>
I think there is a 72 hours window, but we mig
Hey Darren,
I'm having a look at the branch. Takes some time so i will get back to you when
i have something.
Did you run the bvt test suite on this branch already?
Cheers,
Hugo
On Oct 16, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Darren Shepherd
wrote:
> I need as many people as possible to review this branch.
On Oct 16, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Darren Shepherd
wrote:
> How do these merge emails work? Do I just wait and certain amount of time
> and if nobody says no I just do it? I've tested the branch as much as I'd
> like, so just waiting for input.
>
I think there is a 72 hours window, but we mig
How do these merge emails work? Do I just wait and certain amount of time and
if nobody says no I just do it? I've tested the branch as much as I'd like,
so just waiting for input.
Darren
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Darren Shepherd
> wrote:
>
> I need as many people as possible to rev
I need as many people as possible to review this branch. I'm still
testing it out, but I wanted to get as many eyes on it as possible.
This is a huge cross cutting change. This branch is the changes to
use a new Transaction API that will be consistent Spring TX's style so
that we can eventually m
12 matches
Mail list logo
