Re: new branch?

[Ben Abbott]

On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > John / Jaroslav,
> > > >
> > > > I see an unexpected branch in the sources at rev 9284. The branch  
> > > > is more
> > > > like a stub as it only contains two changesets. Both of them are  
> > > > mine.
> > > >
> > > > Revision: 9285
> > > > Branch: default
> > > > Author: Ben Abbott <address@hidden>  2009-05-29 21:46:43
> > > > Committer: Ben Abbott <address@hidden>  2009-05-29 21:46:43
> > > > Parent: 9284:d8becc6d0a18 (__scatter__.m: If the color spec is  
> > > > empty, set
> > > > using __next_line_color__.)
> > > >
> > > >   __gnuplot_has_feature__.m: Change version for  
> > > > "x11_figure_position"
> > > > from
> > > > ">=4.3.0" to ">=4.2.5".
> > > >
> > > > Revision: 9284
> > > > Branch: default
> > > > Author: Ben Abbott <address@hidden>  2009-05-29 20:46:34
> > > > Committer: Ben Abbott <address@hidden>  2009-05-29 20:46:34
> > > > Parent: 9283:38ad8c99d6a2 (__gnuplot_get_var__.m: insert missing
> > > > semicolon)
> > > > Child:  9285:692c5a6ab019 (__gnuplot_has_feature__.m: Change  
> > > > version for
> > > > "x11_figure_position" from ">=4.3.0" to ">=4.2.5".)
> > > >
> > > >   __scatter__.m: If the color spec is empty, set using
> > > > __next_line_color__.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not very good with mercurial, and am only came across the  
> > > > problem
> > > > when I
> > > > did "hg view".
> > > >
> > > > Do you see these changesets in your archive?
> > > >
> > > > Ben
> > >
> > > No, I think neither of these is present, at least the IDs can't be
> > > found. Probably you pulled and forgot to merge or rebase (rebasing  
> > > is
> > > preferred).
> > >
> > > regards
> >
> > Ok. Thanks. I'll try to fix my end tomorrow and then push these  
> > changes.
> >
> > Ben
>
> Are they worth getting into 3.2.0? I've set up Friday as the release
> day, and I want to avoid further delay if possible,
> but there's still time to make rc8 tomorrow. However, if you think
> they deserve testing, we better keep them for 3.2.1.
>
> cheers

These are both trivial changes. I doubt they'd cause any problems, so  
I'd recommend they be included.

I'll push them as soon as I can and you can judge what is appropriate.

Ben