On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Christian Anthon <christian.ant...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Massimiliano Maini > <massimiliano.ma...@amadeus.com> wrote: >> >> motiv4u <moti...@gmail.com> wrote on 03/02/2009 15:26:26: >> >> Uh, I'm not pointing the finger, far from that. He's simlpy the only one >> that can work this one out. He was already aware of the issue. >>
Just to clarify things out: those lines are not mine, but M.M.'s So just discard motiv4u in this quote. N. > > I couldn't understand Jon's workaround. How can it work, If we are > adding anything but raw evaluations to the cache. > >>> I guess it is enough. When I build a Windows build myself - including >>> Christian's change of February 1st -this does not happen. I have no >>> clue why yours build still does. >> >> OK, maybe I'm getting lost with timestamps and file versions ... I'll wait >> for tomorrow's snapshot and see. >> > > Check the changelog. > > Christian. > -- "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." -Jim Elliot _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg