John Casey wrote:
> So, would you say it'd be better to reopen 3057 and
> assign it to 3.x, or open a new issue that references 3057 and 4167, and
> assign that to 3.x?
That's actually the question that I couldn't answer for myself and the
only other opinion so far was an "Agreed" by Brett on an "or" clause...
Hm, IMHO your second suggestion seems most clean, i.e. open a new issue
that links to the other two, probably adding a short comment to 3057
saying that this was intentionally reverted for 2.2.0 (i.e. is not an
unexpected regression) and is scheduled for final resolution by the new
issue in 3.x.
> Apologies for not paying attention to the page title. :-)
Na, no need for apologies, otherwise I would have to apologize as well
for being such a pedant ;-)
Benjamin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
