On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Op 7-8-2013 9:01, Scott Kostyshak schreef:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>>
>> Vincent,
>>
>> Should this go to master?
>>
>> Scott
>
> Yes, that's ok.
It's in at 0f5589e2.
Scott
Op 7-8-2013 9:01, Scott Kostyshak schreef:
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
On 06/11/2013 12:21 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Any thoughts?
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2013 12:21 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> Any thoughts?
Looks reas
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
>> On 06/11/2013 12:21 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>>
>>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Looks reasonable.
>>
>>
>> I don't see any reason this can't go into 2.1. It
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 12:21 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>
>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Looks reasonable.
>
>
> I don't see any reason this can't go into 2.1. It adds behavior, not changes
> it.
Vincent, should I commit to master
On 06/11/2013 12:21 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Any thoughts?
Looks reasonable.
I don't see any reason this can't go into 2.1. It adds behavior, not
changes it.
rh
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Any thoughts?
Looks reasonable. Pavel