Follow-up Comment #31, bug #66392 (group groff): [comment #30 comment #30:] > _Is_ there an issue with it? I mean with my diagnosis > of the problem and the shape of my solution.
Peter raised one in comment #18 and hasn't yet been able to respond to your
comment #21 rebuttal (probably due to the system upgrade he mentions in
comment #11).
I brought up another possible objection in the email thread. No clear
consensus seems to have emerged there.
> Is the timing of the change the problem, or the missing
> alterations to the full-service macro packages?
I mentioned the timing mostly because this change dredged up a more general
discussion about how best to initialize new environments. You worried that
that debate might delay 1.24 (comment #23), and since the .hla change is tied
in with it, the least-disruptive-to-1.24 path seemed to be to defer the .hla
change, which is very much not urgent. (Its behavior has been the same for
decades.)
The needed alterations to macro packages is another part of that. It's more
stuff to be done (impacting both you and Peter) to support a change that can
just as easily wait till the next go-round.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66392>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
