On Jun 14, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course. That's not the question (at least IMO). The question >> is that when a cosmetic change also results in a functional >> change (and we wouldn't be suggesting MMN bumps if it wasn't), >> that it becomes a change that should be proposed as a backport >> and not willy-nilly added. We have a process, and should >> discourage attempts to bypass it on a stable trunk. > > This change followed the process. It currently sits in 2.4.x/STATUS. I know... I voted on it :) I was speaking in generalities... sorry for the confusion.
