<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Reinier Lamers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tux_rocker@reinier.de">tux_rocker@reinier.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi Petr,<br>
<br>
Op vrijdag 25 december 2009 20:23 schreef Petr Rockai:<br>
<div class="im">> Eric Kow <<a href="mailto:kowey@darcs.net">kowey@darcs.net</a>> writes:<br>
> > Reinier and I agree that the Unicode stuff can go in later (eg. Darcs<br>
> > 2.5) rather than sooner (Darcs 2.4), so rest assured there is no<br>
> > pressure and we can roll this stuff back before the freeze if we really<br>
> > need to.<br>
> could I maybe plea to not have rollbacks and rollbacks-of-rollbacks and<br>
> instead just obliterate the problematic patch(es) in the release branch?<br>
> We should just fight it out properly on HEAD (i.e. patch this into a<br>
> form that is sustainable).<br>
<br>
</div>That's a good idea, and it's what I am going to do as the release manager.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm okay with new patches or rollbacks. May I ask why there is a preference for regular patches?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Jason</div></div>