On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 07:19:03PM +0000, Guillaume MM wrote: > Le 01/02/2018 à 18:21, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:00:43PM +0000, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, den 01.02.2018, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 01.02.2018, 11:22 +0100 schrieb Jean-Marc > > > > Lasgouttes: > > > > > This makes much sense. You could probably move the new line to the > > > > > other > > > > > GuiWorkArea constructor... > > > > Yes, this seems to work as well. > > > I have now pushed this fix to master. > > Thanks for the fix, Jürgen. Let's double-check with Guillaume and port > > to 2.3.x. Guillaume does this patch make sense to you? > > > > Scott > > > Dear Scott, this looks good to me.
Thanks for taking a look. > I would not have proposed it for 2.3, I'm pretty sure I know what you mean but I want to make 100% sure: You mean the new compressor in the first place (i.e. commit 789617b8), right? Conditional on us keeping that commit for 2.3.0, you do agree that it makes sense to backport the follow-up 5ce36019, right? The new compressor is in 2.3.0rc2. If we do not receive any other reports that seem linked to it, do you agree that we should keep the compressor for 2.3.0? Or do you have reason to think there is a significant chance of a nasty bug that we might not encounter while testing that could be serious? Thanks, Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
