On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just to be clear, that is now 2 votes for eliminating the 'classic > parser' > > from all > > of trunk, 2.4.x and 2.2.x branches, and using only the strict parser, > > unconditionally. > > > > That's actually 3 votes for removing it from trunk, which I planned to do > > already, > > after 2.4 and 2.2 backports are in-sync with trunk. > > Without yet reviewing the votes, I would (personally) think this kind > of split makes it your call as the one neck deep in the issue & doing > all the work. Thank you for your work on this. > > Maybe one last summary of your call, and a short window for strong > objection/veto? > Certainly, that's what the backport proposal of everything from the initial commit by sf all the way to the present state will accomplish in STATUS. With so many evolutions of various bits, a summary patch will be provided, of course. But it's helpful to me to know the opinions of Jim and Roy and everyone else in advance of proposing that backport.
