rgheck wrote: > Maybe the thing to do is not include it for 1.6.4, but commit it as soon > as 1.6.4 is out, so that it gets tested. I doubt that terribly many > people get bit by this bug. Not to say it isn't important, but we don't > want to make things worse...
Actually, I tend to agree. We could also just commit your patch which pops up a warning on buffer destruction if a buffer is dirty. Jürgen
