Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 15:25:21 +0000, Eric Kow wrote: >> > - parsec >= 2.0 && < 2.2, >> > + parsec >= 2.0 && < 3.1, >> >> The parsec limit is because I'm slightly afraid of breaking OldDate. > > On the other hand, one could argue that our use of parsec in OldDate > is so straightforward that it is unlikely that parsec 3 would break > anything... Let me know what you all think is best. Maybe we should collect some examples of repositories with such old patches and then maybe start an effort to "outsource" all those bits into single place, some sort of "darcs-modernise" so we can drop support for those in mainline darcs. (Same for the crc zlib bug.)
I'll think how that would be doable. Yours, Petr. PS: I think it's OK to relax the limit for now. We can restrict it back before release if we encounter any problems (or if our paranoia wins over us). -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
