+1
- Original Message -
> So everyone is on board for this? Since we've already begun the
> release
> process for 3.0.5, I think it might be best to start the new process
> with
> 3.0.6 and 3.1.5, thoughts?
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM, James Peach
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr
So everyone is on board for this? Since we've already begun the release
process for 3.0.5, I think it might be best to start the new process with
3.0.6 and 3.1.5, thoughts?
Brian
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM, James Peach wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
On 4/27/12 7:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi all,
James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
backported bugs.
I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
etc. is
not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
His suggestion was
On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> Hi all,
>>
>> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
>> backported bugs.
>> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
>> etc. is
>> not only complicated, but diffi
- Original Message -
> Hi all,
>
> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with
> backported bugs.
> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
> etc. is
> not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
>
> His suggestion was simply to clone a bug t
+1 from me.
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 08:28 -0700, James Peach wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with backported
> > bugs. I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning
> > e
On Apr 26, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> James suggested a while ago that we change how we deal with backported bugs.
> I agree with him that our system of closing, reopening, reassigning etc. is
> not only complicated, but difficult to follow.
>
> His suggestion was sim
