On Mi, 2013-11-06 at 10:48 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > That is clearly 1.8 material though. I think for 1.7 we should simply > > leave things as-is. > > Do you mean "as-is with Anthony's patch applied", or "as it was > before that patch was applied" ?
Oh, it is in? > I would suggest the latter > (ie revert this patch), because that's the safest choice this > close to release. Agree. cheers, Gerd
