Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] bug in type-validation for "deprecated" declaration

[Peter Bex]

On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:16:47PM +0200, Felix wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:51:14PM +0200, Felix wrote:
> > Attached is a modified version of your patch which fixes the bug,
> > and contains a regression test.
> 
> Urks. Thanks for catching this. Looks good to me. Can someone sign this
> off? We need a new RC.

Since I approved the basic idea and implementation of your patch, and you
approved my additional changes (which I obviously also approve of), we
have two developers in agreement over a patch.  I think this means you
can sign off on it (since my patch is last).  It's a bit odd given the
git attribution of "signed off by" and "authored by", so maybe we should
come up with a sane way to mark changes like this.  Should I sign off
your changes and include my patch, which you then sign off on as well
(thereby ending with two or more "signed-off-by" lines)?  Or maybe I
should sign off on your patch as-is, even though it's broken and then
create a new patch, sending it as two changesets back to the list?

Also, can we really tag a new RC?  Shouldn't the Linux/MacPPC issue
(#916) be fixed first?  Otherwise we'd need *another* RC.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth