Paul wrote: > So, apparently my revision resulted in two FAILs. Or it was due to the third patch (unlikely) or a combination of the patches.
> It still seems > logically correct to me and I think we should put the revised > version in CVS even if it accidentally gives worth results on > regressions. Also, in the long run this shouldn't matter much if > Arend finishes his algorithmic-owl-escape patch. > > Any objections? Fine with me. /Gunnar _______________________________________________ gnugo-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
