> > I suppose the best way to fix this is to help kendy (and/or whomever)
> > expedite the m106 merge and back-merge to master -
> Which will result, no doubt, in master being horribly unbuildable on Windows
> for some weeks.
But what the heck, people who definitely need a buildable master on
Hi Bjoern,
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 13:44 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Which is just plain wrong and needs immediate fixing. Keeping master
> buildable must be as high in priority as doing that with the release
> branch.
I suggest we cool off and discuss this, in a more measured way, in
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 24 May 2011 10:52:29 +0100
Michael Meeks
wrote:
> > Note that many of us were (and still are?) focusing on stabilizing
> > the 3.4 branch and didn't have a working master.
Which is just plain wrong and needs immediate fixing. Keeping master
buildable must be as high in prior
> I suppose the best way to fix this is to help kendy (and/or whomever)
> expedite the m106 merge and back-merge to master -
Which will result, no doubt, in master being horribly unbuildable on Windows
for some weeks. But that doesn't count, does it?
--tml
Hi Bjoern,
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 11:40 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> What we decided to do was to just commit the safe fixes to the 3-4
> branch and merge them into master in one go
Right.
> Note that many of us were (and still are?) focusing on stabilizing
> the 3.4 branch and didn't ha
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 17:14 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>
> Hi Kohei,
>
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:08:38 -0400
> Kohei Yoshida wrote:
>
> > Because that's what we decided to do during our TSC meeting IIRC. The
> > premise was that we would do merge regularly into master, ~at least
> > once p
Hi Kohei,
On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:08:38 -0400
Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Because that's what we decided to do during our TSC meeting IIRC. The
> premise was that we would do merge regularly into master, ~at least
> once per week as we did during the 3.3 release. But for some reason
> we haven't mer
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:56 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 06:39:52 -0600
> "Tor Lillqvist"
> wrote:
>
> > Well, the policy, at least as some of us (me included) have
> > understood it, was that the development branch gets merged into
> > master regularly, so no need to com
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 14:29 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi Tor,
>
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 04:52:26 -0600
> "Tor Lillqvist"
> wrote:
>
> > Seems to be fixed already in a different way in -3-4
> Why that ever been done? Fixing something on the release branch, but not
> on the development bran
On Mon, 23 May 2011 06:39:52 -0600
"Tor Lillqvist"
wrote:
> Well, the policy, at least as some of us (me included) have
> understood it, was that the development branch gets merged into
> master regularly, so no need to commit fixes to both. But yeah, it
> does now seem safer to commit to both th
Sorry, got my words mixed up. What I mean was obviously:
Well, the policy, at least as some of us (me included) have understood it, was
that the stable branch gets merged into the development branch (master)
regularly, so no need to commit fixes to both. But yeah, it does now seem safer
to comm
> Fixing something on the release branch, but not
> on the development branch is downright stupid.
Well, the policy, at least as some of us (me included) have understood it, was
that the development branch gets merged into master regularly, so no need to
commit fixes to both. But yeah, it does
Hi Tor,
On Mon, 23 May 2011 04:52:26 -0600
"Tor Lillqvist"
wrote:
> Seems to be fixed already in a different way in -3-4
Why that ever been done? Fixing something on the release branch, but not
on the development branch is downright stupid. And it is not getting
better (or worse) by Sun/Oracle
> The current state is in integration/dev300_m106, I'll be grateful for any
> help there.
Is there any email or wiki writeup on what is the recommended workflow, etc? I
would love to help, but I don't know what to do.
--tml
___
LibreOffice mailing l
Hi Tor,
On 2011-05-23 at 04:52 -0600, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Seems to be fixed already in a different way in -3-4 (and presumably
> -3-4-0) by Kohei in 06b6df6759929073e917ae0fa7e819407d3e2555 ,
> "fdo#36288: Fixed a crasher on Base" on Apr 20. Why the crash still
> happens then, no idea. Anyway,
Seems to be fixed already in a different way in -3-4 (and presumably -3-4-0) by
Kohei in 06b6df6759929073e917ae0fa7e819407d3e2555 , "fdo#36288: Fixed a crasher
on Base" on Apr 20. Why the crash still happens then, no idea. Anyway,
cherry-pick fails.
I guess a merge of -3-4 to master is long ove
Hi all,
please review:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/components/commit/?id=19ed36590e990b5281da9c54bd962031bd56ae82
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-core/commit/?id=f25b836319678ab333a1a997cc7fdadfedad8e08
* various forms.OGridControlModel tests segfaulted
* root cause is t
17 matches
Mail list logo
