Hi Ken, The questions that I would want answered in one location/email are: 1. What is broken, including examples. 2. Why is a revert needed, i.e. what was the original commit trying to fix, and by simply reverting we will just reintroduce the problem that it was trying to work around. 3. Idealy we get a code improvement patch rather than a revert, which will take into account problems in 1 and 2, and ensures that the new code handles both. If you are unable to work on the patch, maybe you can help to identify suitable tests/examples for 1 and 2 so that we can work up a proper solution. This might take a bit longer than just reverting, but as I see it is the right way forward, otherwise we will just be trading one set of problems for another. Hope this makes sence. thanks, Mesar On Fri 27/06/14,18:32, Ken Perry wrote: > > This patch reverts the function change John made and it solves a lot of back > translation issues. Can someone patch it in and try it out. I don't see any > major problems with this. > Ken
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
