That's the point of this thread - figure out if this is expected or a bug and -d:danger should also define -d:release
- Is "danger" define supposed to also define "... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to also defi... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to also ... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed to a... ktamp
- Re: Is "danger" define supposed ... Yardanico
- Re: Is "danger" define supp... juancarlospaco
- Re: Is "danger" define ... Araq
- Re: Is "danger" def... Vindaar
- Re: Is "danger" def... dom96
