> 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?
I don't know. Too many words for too little an issue. I'll push it now. > > Also, can we really tag a new RC? Shouldn't the Linux/MacPPC issue > (#916) be fixed first? Otherwise we'd need *another* RC. I can not reproduce this, and only can test on a PPC64 (gcc compile farm). This bug looks a bit obscure. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
