> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 03:40 +0200, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> I don't think the zph patch belongs in 3.0.STABLE. It's a new feature
>> with several new directives, not a bugfix, and additionally I'd like a
>> bit of cleanup before release.
>>
>> Saw that it got merged to 3.0 some day ago... and I vote that it gets
>> backed out from 3.0. But should stay in trunk.
>
> If the primary reason for 3.0 inclusion was that it was simple to do so,
> then I think we should satisfy Henrik's request and back it out for now.
Primary reason was that it was included in 2.x, so it came under
cross-porting. Still no excuse for missing the merge vote. I'll be backing
out shortly.
>
> Since the code is already in 2.6, the patch can probably go back into
> 3.0 if Henrik has time to apply the changes he wants and the code is
> still not disruptive after that.
>
> And let's try to follow the [MERGE] rules for non-trivial changes even
> though bb is not working.
Yes. Apologies all around.
Amos
Received on Fri May 09 2008 - 02:23:02 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 13 2008 - 12:00:04 MDT