Adeodato Simó <[email protected]> writes: > * Martin-Éric Racine [Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:34:29 +0200]: > >> >> I don't think broken 0.99g5-6 reached testing. > >> >> And the "bug" #511290 it was trying to fix is controversial. The >> >> purpose of the changes is to allow some obsolete spelling variants to >> >> be considered as valid. > >> > Okay, I'll take this as an indication that no action from the release >> > team is needed unless further notice. > >> Actually, Stepan's got that one backwards: 0.99g5-7 *restores* >> support for the contemporary spelling. Support for the traditional >> spelling never disappeared.
No. The disappeared support was for traditional ambiguous variant. From my point of view not supporting that variant is a feature. Though the question whether IO can/should be replaced with IE is flamy (formally, replacing is allowed only in some cases; not replacing is always allowed). Actually, patches to #511290 were sent during flamewar on that subject on debian-russian. > That's not really relevant. What is interesting is whether Stepan's > assessment that 0.99g5-5 is not affected by this issue is correct or > not. I was referring to the grave bugs which were introduced while trying to "fix" #511290. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
