| 1 |
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:14:11 +0200 |
| 2 |
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'm wondering what our best merge strategy is here. I'm inclined to |
| 4 |
> > think we're best off fixing all the labels on the eapi-3 branch |
| 5 |
> > (even if we can't get them displayed or used for named references |
| 6 |
> > just yet), rebasing that onto master (not much has diverged) once |
| 7 |
> > we have the go-ahead from the Council either next meeting or the |
| 8 |
> > one after (probably...) and then doing the cheat-sheet with EAPI 3 |
| 9 |
> > included on top of that. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> That sounds ok to me. Getting those labels in is the most important |
| 12 |
> part...so that should be feature wise for every feature listed in |
| 13 |
> appendix E. Volunteers? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm going to be with laptop stuck in the middle of wet, miserable, rainy |
| 16 |
nowhere and relying upon a very slow and dodgy mobile internet |
| 17 |
connection over Easter weekend, so that'll give me something to do. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > Or were you particularly desperate to get the cheat-sheet in for |
| 20 |
> > EAPI 2? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> No, a version has been announced and is available for download. So |
| 23 |
> no haste here. What time frame do you expect to approve EAPI 3? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We were sort of hoping either next Council meeting or the one after, |
| 26 |
assuming Portage support is far enough along that we can say for sure |
| 27 |
which features are going to be in. So that's either a week off or three |
| 28 |
weeks off, although obviously these things rarely work as planned... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives