super. I missed that, Egon. OK. Then I will change and test that, and,
Miguel, let's get that bug fix in soon.
Egon Willighagen wrote:
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 05:53, Bob Hanson wrote:
that's different. That just has to do with wether we really want "0" now
for "no chain indicated" instead o
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 05:53, Bob Hanson wrote:
> that's different. That just has to do with wether we really want "0" now
> for "no chain indicated" instead of the former "". Eric had commented
> about that, and I agree with him that it's strange and unnecessary to
> have "SER:0", but that's a
that's different. That just has to do with wether we really want "0" now
for "no chain indicated" instead of the former "". Eric had commented
about that, and I agree with him that it's strange and unnecessary to
have "SER:0", but that's a separate issue. The other business only has
to do with
Bob,
> I guess my first choice would be your patching bug fixes into 10.2. Some
> reason not to do that?
I am waiting for clarification on CIF changes.
Perhaps I misunderstood ... I thought that you were going to work
something out with Egon.
Miguel
-
