On 9/23/13, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: > It sortof got lost; actually, it's still sitting in my e-mail queue... > > I no longer have the energy (and the interest) to fully concentrate on > groff, mainly because other issues require my time. As mentioned in > the old mail, however, some debugging would be necessary to find out > why the workaround is necessary at all.
I am usually the last person to advocate for putting a workaround in released code rather than finding the root of the problem. However given that (1) there seems to be no one with the time and expertise to properly debug it, and (2) the workaround solves a legitimate problem without (so far as I have have seen, in 2+ years of use) causing any harmful side effects, perhaps committing the workaround (with a comment marking it as such) is the right way to proceed in this case. An item could be added to groff's TODO to alert any future developers that the issue still needs proper resolution.
