On 2018.07.08 14:52, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
I hope I am reiterating something that is consistent with consensus
opinion: the next release we go with the compatible ABI and Thomas'
changes.
Well, I guess I wasn't clear enough then, as I disagree with this approach.
My vote is to *NOT* apply
Hi,
Pete Batard wrote:
> IMO, a v2 should be reserved for "oh yeah, we designed the _whole_
> thing very wrong,
Probably i never really expressed my emotions towards that name member
of variable size at the end of the struct. "Very wrong" is much too feeble.
> But if you're really addressing a
Perhaps what should be done is split off libiso9660 into a separate project
which has its own release cycle?
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2018.07.08 21:30, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
>> What if an application is poorly maintained but still in use.
>>
>
> Well, from
Hi,
Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> I'll rely on
> Thomas to give the go ahead for merging the ts-multiextent branch (or
> Thomas you can just go ahead and do it)
Don't let me do sincere git work.
As for the go-ahead, i wonder whether Pete's compiler likes the code now.
> After that settles, then
