On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:02:33PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > Feel free to discuss this in -legal, though that doesn't change the fact > that we currently don't expect textual source for arbitrary bits of data.
Okay, I will (eventually). I don't expect you consider this corner-case release critical untill it's been properly discussed. And I assume by your reply that this discussion hasn't happened yet, so as far as I'm concerned there's no time to do that before Lenny. I _do_ think it is necessary, though. > > or in some -rare!- cases, that I mistakenly think I found one > > Ah I expect noone is perfect, but you're close to be an exception? That was a joke of course! I mess things up about as much as anyone else, perhaps even more :-) > but also about it being a bug... One could make the point that it is a wishlist bug... but we don't need to spend time nitpicking about such things. I'll proceed my inspection, and exclude problems that appear to fall in the cathegory of "small chunk of non-code" from being filed as bugs. Thanks, -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
