On 2011-05-16 00:02, Robert Miller wrote:
> I disagree with your logic-- you can't justify A with B if B happened
> after A... You backed #10804 out before I did anything. Since both
> were rejected, I randomly chose one to rebase on the other.
Okay, I will remember this for the future.
--
To pos
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2011-05-13 07:24, Tom Boothby wrote:
>> Bottom line: I think this was handled wrong. If a ticket's been
>> merged, unless it's found to have a genuine flaw, it should supersede
>> (IMO) tickets with positive reviews which have not been merged.
> In this case, the *autho
On 2011-05-13 07:24, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Bottom line: I think this was handled wrong. If a ticket's been
> merged, unless it's found to have a genuine flaw, it should supersede
> (IMO) tickets with positive reviews which have not been merged.
In this case, the *author* of those tickets decided to
> If a ticket's been merged, unless it's found to have a genuine
> flaw, it should supersede ... tickets ... which have not been
> merged.
+1
--
Robert L. Miller
http://www.rlmiller.org/
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, se
I've been reviewing #10804, which was merged in sage-4.7.1.alpha0. I
though this was a done deal... but apparently not. In the meantime,
#10549 got a positive review. It conflicted with #10804. Jeroen,
acting RM (for which I'm immensely grateful), backed out #10804 and
marked both patches needs
