On Wed, 2010-01-20, I (Julian Foad) wrote: > Basically I am questioning whether r900797 should be seen as a > requirement for 1.6.9. Certainly it would be good to include this > additional fix if it's stable.
Ah, great, I see so it's been approved and included in the 1.6.9 testing package, so this question is now moot. I'll get our testers to test it. - Julian
