On 9 February 2010 04:18, John Dong <email address hidden> wrote:
> I'd be fine with approving the backport as-is due to the launchpad
> incompatible usecase, but are we also interested in backporting the most
> popular bzr plugins (i.e bzrtools?) as well?
Yes, it would be good to take them all from karmic-updates. The ones
currently in hardy may not work with 2.0.x, in which case perhaps the
2.0.x package should conflict with them?
On 9 February 2010 04:18, John Dong <email address hidden> wrote:
> I'd be fine with approving the backport as-is due to the launchpad
> incompatible usecase, but are we also interested in backporting the most
> popular bzr plugins (i.e bzrtools?) as well?
Yes, it would be good to take them all from karmic-updates. The ones
currently in hardy may not work with 2.0.x, in which case perhaps the
2.0.x package should conflict with them?
-- launchpad. net/~mbp/>
Martin <http://