On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:16:47PM +0200, Felix wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:51:14PM +0200, Felix wrote: > > Attached is a modified version of your patch which fixes the bug, > > and contains a regression test. > > Urks. Thanks for catching this. Looks good to me. Can someone sign this > off? We need a new RC.
Since I approved the basic idea and implementation of your patch, and you approved my additional changes (which I obviously also approve of), we have two developers in agreement over a patch. I think this means you can sign off on it (since my patch is last). It's a bit odd given the git attribution of "signed off by" and "authored by", so maybe we should come up with a sane way to mark changes like this. Should I sign off your changes and include my patch, which you then sign off on as well (thereby ending with two or more "signed-off-by" lines)? Or maybe I should sign off on your patch as-is, even though it's broken and then create a new patch, sending it as two changesets back to the list? Also, can we really tag a new RC? Shouldn't the Linux/MacPPC issue (#916) be fixed first? Otherwise we'd need *another* RC. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
