On Apr 20, 2017 15:06, "André Malo" <n...@perlig.de> wrote:

* William A Rowe Jr wrote:

> Please re-validate your assumptions before we proceed with this
> discussion. I'll be interested in your findings.

I did. I've decided to drop out of that "discussion".

I'm sorry if I offended you, or was too assertive in my tone. I did discover
one edge case as mentioned before where a missing language (or two) even
for nearly irrelevant content would introduce an unexpected result. That is
now fixed.

I hope this resolves the veto you raised...

I don't see what problem that's supposed to solve. On the contrary, since
the configured negotiation happens per file [1], removing languages, we do
provide somewhere does not make sense at all.

Please revert.

I hope at this point all of your concerns are addressed? If not I'll
revert 2.4.x in anticipation of a 2.4.26 tag soon-ish.

Reply via email to