On Apr 20, 2017 15:06, "André Malo" <n...@perlig.de> wrote:
* William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Please re-validate your assumptions before we proceed with this > discussion. I'll be interested in your findings. I did. I've decided to drop out of that "discussion". I'm sorry if I offended you, or was too assertive in my tone. I did discover one edge case as mentioned before where a missing language (or two) even for nearly irrelevant content would introduce an unexpected result. That is now fixed. I hope this resolves the veto you raised... I don't see what problem that's supposed to solve. On the contrary, since the configured negotiation happens per file [1], removing languages, we do provide somewhere does not make sense at all. Please revert. I hope at this point all of your concerns are addressed? If not I'll entirely revert 2.4.x in anticipation of a 2.4.26 tag soon-ish.
