load ("") patch applied?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

load ("") patch applied?

Rik-4
1/18/12

John,

You very quickly crafted a patch for 3.6.0 to avoid a segfault with the
command 'load ("")'.  I don't see that this got pushed to Mercurial.

Secondly, I have a mess of patches for the default branch which I have been
keeping in Mercurial Queues until after the 3.6.0 release.  Can I start
committing those or would you like to do a little tree maintenance first?
I know you usually delete all the functions which will be obsoleted in the
3.8.0 release and also set the version strings for the API, etc., back to
development numbers.

Cheers,
Rik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

load ("") patch applied?

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 18-Jan-2012, Rik wrote:

| 1/18/12
|
| John,
|
| You very quickly crafted a patch for 3.6.0 to avoid a segfault with the
| command 'load ("")'.  I don't see that this got pushed to Mercurial.

I don't remember seeing a reply about whether it fixed the problem for
the original use case.

| Secondly, I have a mess of patches for the default branch which I have been
| keeping in Mercurial Queues until after the 3.6.0 release.  Can I start
| committing those or would you like to do a little tree maintenance first?
| I know you usually delete all the functions which will be obsoleted in the
| 3.8.0 release and also set the version strings for the API, etc., back to
| development numbers.

Go ahead.  The order that these things are done doesn't matter much to
me.

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: load ("") patch applied?

Rik-4
On 01/18/2012 06:20 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:|
> | John,
> |
> | You very quickly crafted a patch for 3.6.0 to avoid a segfault with the
> | command 'load ("")'.  I don't see that this got pushed to Mercurial.
>
> I don't remember seeing a reply about whether it fixed the problem for
> the original use case.
He replied immediately but sent it to the maintainers list rather than to you.

---Quote---
Yes, it did. Thanks for the speedy fix.
-- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor [hidden email]
---End Quote---