What's the cost :: benefit ratio for this? Is not including this patch going to block something critical? We're in phase II testing, so we need to be extra picky about patches here.
-bw On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Brad Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/12/13 1:34 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Get what committed? I don't see a patch here. >> >> -bw >> > > It was at the beginning of the thread.. > > http://marc.info/?l=cfe-commits&m=138588474806028&w=2 > > >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Rafael Espíndola >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > So can we get this commited? >> >> Depends on Bill's opinion about porting this to 3.4. If it is not OK >> to 3.4 I think we should try o use gnutools::Assemble::ConstructJob >> on >> trunk instead. >> >> Cheers, >> Rafael >> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is >> believed to be clean. >> > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
