[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 releas
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?) |
Date: |
Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:07:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080306) |
John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 3-Apr-2008, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | We still need to add the same warning
> | messages to the existing deprecated functions.
>
> Would you like for me to do that?
>
The reason I didn't do it, is that its nearly 90 files that need
altering, and the alteration is different for each file, and there might
even be some odd cases like gamma_*.m where the sense of the arguments
changed as the help text might need to be adjusted to reflect that. Its
therefore not easy to write a script to automate the inclusion of the
warning. I'll try to do something, but it might take a while.
> I added a comment to all the files in the directory to indicate in
> which version the function was moved to the deprecated directory. I
> used 3.0 for all functions except the ones you just created. For
> those I used 3.1. So if you decide to add the warnings, please update
> first to avoid potential conflicts.
>
Ok, I pulled in your changes.
D.
--
David Bateman address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph)
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax)
The information contained in this communication has been classified as:
[x] General Business Information
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), (continued)
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?),
David Bateman <=
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/04
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/04
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), Ben Abbott, 2008/04/03
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, Bill Denney, 2008/04/03
- Re: 3.0.1 release?, John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
Re: 3.0.1 release?, Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2008/04/02
Re: 3.0.1 release?, Thomas Weber, 2008/04/03
Re: 3.0.1 release?, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/04/03