Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

the pdt_locales/en_AU.py file uses en_A for the localID instead of en_AU #120

Closed
bear opened this issue Sep 21, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@bear
Copy link
Owner

bear commented Sep 21, 2015

A very old mistake that should be fixed - will require a major version bump

found during work on PR #118

@bear bear added the bug label Sep 21, 2015
@bear bear self-assigned this Sep 21, 2015
bear added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 21, 2015
@bear bear closed this as completed Sep 21, 2015
@MatthiasKauer
Copy link

Why does this require a major version bump? In other words: In what situations should I expect things to break?
I'm trying to figure out if I should modify code in my project that depends on this one.

@bear
Copy link
Owner Author

bear commented Mar 24, 2016

@MatthiasKauer In hindsight I would agree with you - it didn't need a major version bump but I had already rolled it into the v2.0 changes

to be honest the amount of bug fixes that have been made since then is more of a reason to upgrade

@MatthiasKauer
Copy link

Thanks for clarifying.
I'll update for sure. I'm mainly trying to figure out where I should look for things to possibly break in my own code with that upgrade.

@bear
Copy link
Owner Author

bear commented Mar 25, 2016

The CHANGES.txt log is very complete, but I realize may not have all of the info you need -- the vast majority of the changes are bug fixes and I don't think we made any changes to how methods are called or their return values.

thanks!

@MatthiasKauer
Copy link

I'm coming from that changes file. It is indeed very good. The reason I'm asking is that it lists this issue as sole reason for the major version increase. When I come here, however, it didn't feel so major at first glance. Anyhow, sorry to bother you and thanks for the explanation!

On 25 March 2016 18:46:30 CET, Mike Taylor notifications@github.com wrote:

The CHANGES.txt log is very complete, but I realize may not have all of
the info you need -- the vast majority of the changes are bug fixes and
I don't think we made any changes to how methods are called or their
return values.

thanks!


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#120 (comment)

@bear
Copy link
Owner Author

bear commented Mar 26, 2016

glad to help and thanks for the suggestion - I will definitely be more aware of how the changes file reads to others going forward!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants