Trevor Daniels a écrit :
No, it's OK. Just a mild preference. Not worth any trouble.
I'd added a new section or two which caused a renumbering.
It's not really a problem.
Agreed; FWIW I backported a lot of doc changes in early 2.12 versions
and IIRC nobody complained about renumbering. Oh yes
Graham Percival wrote Monday, February 23, 2009 1:52 PM
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 06:59:44PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
Hi guys,
Trevor Daniels a écrit :
I'd go along with going straight to 2.13 too. AFAIK there are
no serious outstanding issues with 2.12.2 that must be fixed,
and I feel a
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 03:22:30PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > Ok, I've just modified the VERSION file with a great fanfare. And
> > by "great fanfare" I mean sitting in my room in my underwear,
> > listening to a BBC radio documentary about torturers.
> > ... yea
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 06:59:44PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
>
>> There should be a 2.12.3 for Japanese translation, but this doesn't
>> prevent us to start 2.13 on master branch right now: we else can
>> branch out from master a branch named stable/2.12 and use it to
Hi all,
I'm starting a new thread for extra visibility. I've just
officially started the 2.13 branch. We now accept[1] patches
which change the input syntax, change the build system, change the
build requirements, and generally break everything[2].
[1] By "accept", we mean "will review eventua
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 06:59:44PM +0100, John Mandereau wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Trevor Daniels a écrit :
>> I'd go along with going straight to 2.13 too. AFAIK there are
>> no serious outstanding issues with 2.12.2 that must be fixed,
>> and I feel a little uncomfortable with some of the doc changes
