[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Are cross-staff beams and 'remove-empty *really* not compatible?

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Are cross-staff beams and 'remove-empty *really* not compatible?
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:15:06 +0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> 2009/1/7 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> > In case nobody replies by the time this email gets sent (I'm
> > sitting in the Employment Pass office in Singapore; my ticket
> > number is 404 and they were on 265 when I arrived), check for a
> > regtest.  If this is one, remove the warning.  If there isn't one,
> > make a regtest (which I think you did below), wait a week, then
> > add the regtest and remove the warning.
> Thanks. I do think that this warning is no longer needed.
> I've already checked the regtests, and have found nothing.

Err, no -- I was suggesting that you *add* a regtest.  Maybe a
developer will disagree, but IMO if it's working now, and wasn't
working at some point in the past (when the warning was written),
then somebody probably added it but forgot to remove the warning.
In which case we might as well do that now.

A more responsible thing to do would be to search the commit
archives for clues about this possible devel work.

> PS -- Welcome to Singapore; hope you'll tell us about the local chicks ;-)

Noisy.  I could hear them over the noise of the traffic at 7am.
Although it sounded more like an adult bird than a baby bird.
Massively more observations[1] are on my blog, which I guess has
now crossed another rung of the netherworld into being a travel

[1]  None about girls, though.  My mother reads my blog!

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]