On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 01:01:13PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 04/12/2016 à 12:25, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 11:57:29AM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > > > > > Le 04/12/2016 à 00:57, Enrico Forestieri a écrit : > > > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 11:59:33PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is the same as > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg196794.html. I > > > > > have now backported the fix. > > > > > > > > Hmmm... a quite convoluted patch. There was a one-liner fixing this. > > > > > > > > > > But then you are repeating the discussion above. What point are you > > > trying to make? > > > > Given two equivalent patches, the simpler is preferable. > > > > The patch which is preferable is the one that deviates the less from > master, because: > * it is already tested, > * it causes fewer merge conflicts with future backports. > > In this case indeed, the backported code is still in master because it > was written with the proper fix at e0e765f6a98 in mind, as I explained > in the previous discussion.
Weak arguments, given that you say the patch was written with the proper fix in mind (which is not in stable). It would be better if you post your patches to stable for approval and comments before committing them. -- Enrico
