On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 11:15 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> The file re-arranging polish:
> - I'm kind of in favour of it as a pure file-movements-only
> alteration. 3.2 has no feature-requests yet and back-porting across a
> file-re-arranged setup is likely to be more trouble than its worth.
Can you clarify the above? I am not disagreeing, but am not sure whether
you are saying we should move/rename files in 3.1.
> - If you think you can get it done in a reasonable timespan to get
> done by the RC releases great. I don't think the PRE need to wait for
> it, its polish after all not a true feature.
> - It is your baby though.
Understood.
> If you have the resources to move a few 2.6 features to 3.1 they should
> be timelined by 31 March or officially shifted to 3.2 pending later
> re-evaluation. Yes?
Agreed. I am still evaluating what needs to be ported and whether the
Factory can sponsor any of that.
Thank you,
Alex.
Received on Tue Mar 18 2008 - 17:06:18 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 13:00:10 MDT