Message95452
> I have always tried to be very conservative with backporting stuff that
> is not clearly a bugfix but alters any kind of behaviour. I am always
> very concerned about compatibility, especially if code has been around
> for as long as this code has.
> But as I don't want to waste anybody's time with a lengthy discussion,
> just say a word and I apply it to 2.6 and 3.1 as well ;-)
What if I say chocolate?
Regardless, I think you should backport it at least to 3.1, and that it
makes sense to backport it to 2.6 too. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-11-18 20:54:26 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, paul.moore, lars.gustaebel |
2009-11-18 20:54:24 | pitrou | link | issue7341 messages |
2009-11-18 20:54:24 | pitrou | create | |
|