Holger Levsen wrote:
>> (1) You suggest it should start again with "--max-container-depth 3",
>> but it would surely need some syntax (or another option?) to control
>> that "3" (but for the second time only).
>
> another option, --second-pass-max-container-depth or some such
>
>> (2) In fact, its
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2024-04-16, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> However, I think this first iteration of --hard-timeout time has a few
>> things that would need ironing out first, and potentially make it not
>> worth implementing:
>>
>> (1) You suggest it should start again with "--max-container-de
Your message dated Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:09:44 +
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1068890: diffoscope: --hard-timeout option
has caused the Debian Bug report #1068890,
regarding diffoscope: --hard-timeout option
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been d
