[bug #66419] [libgroff] seems like fix for bug 61424 was too aggressive

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #14, bug #66419 (group groff):

[comment #9 comment #9:]
> If you'd like to propose its reconsideration, please post a
> comment to bug #61424 so that the other _groff_ developers who
> opined on it (Dave Kemper and Deri James) are aware of your
> perspective and can weigh in. 

I'm following this one too.  FWIW, I never expressed (and still don't have) a
strong opinion about 61424.  My only comments there were about the conditions
under which I could reproduce it.  (The mystery in my last 61424 comment, to
my knowledge, remains unsolved.  But I doubt it has any bearing here.)


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66419>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature