Based on this feedback, I've now merged execwork and master so are the
same. I also tagged the pre-merge changeset for later reference.
Please rebase your changes against master and continue your future
development and patch work there.
For those that haven't tried it out yet, check out FishEye, nice
ability to review the source tree.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Michael Hausenblas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 from my side as well, but we really need to document this clearly and nicely on the Wiki, in big red <blink> letters ;)
> Michael Hausenblas
> Ireland, Europe
> On 16 Jul 2013, at 09:17, Srihari Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1...this will be very useful for fresh starters!
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branch
>>> and then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unit
>>> test completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears that
>>> everyone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've also
>>> had a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with the
>>> project who assume that a lack of commits on master means the project
>>> is less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge the
>>> execwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.
>>> With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the merge
>>> of DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes in
>>> master and all tests pass.