On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 12:22:23AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>
> Looks good to me.
Committed at 9435dd6b.
--
Enrico
On 12/02/2016 07:05 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 12:27:03AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:31:44PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>>> I'm no expert on this part of the code, but this doesn't look too
>>> dangerous. Since 2.2.3 is still a little w
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 12:27:03AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:31:44PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
> >
> > I'm no expert on this part of the code, but this doesn't look too
> > dangerous. Since 2.2.3 is still a little ways away, is it worth
> > committing to stable?
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:31:44PM -0500, Richard Heck wrote:
>
> I'm no expert on this part of the code, but this doesn't look too
> dangerous. Since 2.2.3 is still a little ways away, is it worth
> committing to stable?
I think it is not risky and I am attaching the version for stable here.
How
I'm no expert on this part of the code, but this doesn't look too
dangerous. Since 2.2.3 is still a little ways away, is it worth
committing to stable?
Richard
On 12/01/2016 12:03 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> commit e8f480e7c22ae29804ff0c386c54e86c9b72d3ce
> Author: Enrico Forestieri
> Date
