This is pretty simple, usually. :-)

Comment on attachment 188161 [details] [diff] [review] Changes page Usually yes.. but this time, I think you need to create 2.20 branch column too. Assuming you plan to branch at the same time you release 2.20rc1 like I have understood.

(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 188161 [details] [diff] [review] [edit]) > Usually yes.. but this time, I think you need to create 2.20 branch column too. > Assuming you plan to branch at the same time you release 2.20rc1 like I have > understood. There's no 2.21 yet, so there's no "2.20 branch" needed, yet. That will be necessary for rc2/2.20.

Comment on attachment 188161 [details] [diff] [review] Changes page OK, then it's probably next releases that need the 2.20 branch column created. Assuming mkanat knows what he is doing with branches, this is good to go otherwise.

If Max means "when 2.20rc1 is released, the 2.20 branch will be created (in CVS)" then I think the Changes page needs a 2.20 branch column containing a link to "2.20rc -> Today" changelog as appeared to happen when 2.18rc1 was released, as far as I can tell. If he doesn't, then ignore this...

I agree with Colin. AFAIK we will unfreeze when we release 2.20rc1. In this case this patch is wrong.

(23:50:39) LpSolit: patches will be submitted independently on the trunk and the 2.20 branch. We then need a new column as Colin said (23:51:00) LpSolit: else you would get a single query for both (23:51:11) Zornreich: hmm.. (23:52:09) LpSolit: we need the BUGZILLA-2_20-BRANCH tag too

Comment on attachment 188161 [details] [diff] [review] Changes page Uhh, I'm even more confused now but I changed my mind back. Sorry for bugspam and anybody more qualified that me can feel free to overrule my r-.

OK, fixed it. I'll probably check this into the web site without r+, but you can still look it over to make sure I didn't miss anything. :-)

OK, web site updates committed, commit message in bug 297590.

Comment on attachment 188634 [details] [diff] [review] v2 Live changes page looks and functions fine. It doesn't even have any validation warnings. So this patch must be good, I'll give it a posthumous r+. :)