On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Fredrik Orderud <forderud_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, go ahead and file an issue, and include links to this and the other
>> mail thread in the description.
>> At this point, I am not sure whether I'd call it a defect or an
>> enhancement request (asking for a new optional strict mode for merging), I
>> guess it depends on your point of view. But it doesn't matter that much, so
>> go with what you think is best.
> Thanks! I took the liberty of categorizing it as a "defect" and registered
> Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to increase the
> likelihood of this issue being fixed as soon as reasonably possible.
You filed the issue, tying the various bits of information together,
that's a good first step.
As you've probably seen, I also added a note about your mail-thread
and corresponding issue to the dev-thread I talked about earlier, to
give it some more visibility.
Maybe someone will pick this up and start working on it. But keep in
mind that there are a lot of issues, some of which impact a lot of
users (and everyone has his own priorities of course).
Some of the things you can do to get this issue forward are (a) help
drive (or participate in) the discussion to get to the finer details
of the desired behavior and (b) write a patch :-). Also, since you
filed this as a "defect", it would be helpful if you wrote an XFAIL
("expected fail") testcase for our (python) testsuite (which can be
used to clearly demonstrate the problem, and later as a regression
test, when the issue gets fixed).
If you're interested, you should probably head over to the dev@
mailinglist for continuing the discussion. If you want to have a go at
writing a patch (or a regression test), you should take a look at the
community guide  (and of course, feel free to ask any questions
that might come up, on the dev-list).
Received on 2013-08-06 15:53:42 CEST