On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 6:07 PM Julian Foad wrote:
>
> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > Ah, yes, I think that makes #4889 a blocker.
>
> Well, I'm having a hard time deciding what exactly we need and why.
>
> I previously said "it's pretty clear it needs to be uncoupled" but
> actually just now I've
Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Ah, yes, I think that makes #4889 a blocker.
Well, I'm having a hard time deciding what exactly we need and why.
I previously said "it's pretty clear it needs to be uncoupled" but
actually just now I've dived into it for a couple of hours, coding and
thinking, and it's
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:28 PM Julian Foad wrote:
>
> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > I think this was asked several times before, but I can't find the
> > thread: is the pristines-on-demand behavior still unconditionally tied
> > to format 32? Or is it that format 32 makes it _possible_ to enable
> >
Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> I think this was asked several times before, but I can't find the
> thread: is the pristines-on-demand behavior still unconditionally tied
> to format 32? Or is it that format 32 makes it _possible_ to enable
> pristines-on-demand?
Currently it's tied to f32, but it's
I think this was asked several times before, but I can't find the
thread: is the pristines-on-demand behavior still unconditionally tied
to format 32? Or is it that format 32 makes it _possible_ to enable
pristines-on-demand?
I would object to having pristines-on-demand=enabled coupled to simply
5 matches
Mail list logo
