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

[Felix]

> 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?

I don't know. Too many words for too little an issue. I'll push it
now.

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

I can not reproduce this, and only can test on a PPC64 (gcc compile
farm). This bug looks a bit obscure.


cheers,
felix