Hi David,
> > I thought the test should change to handle no iconv, iconv, and
> > ice-age iconv
>
> As in, now it doesn't handle the no-iconv case? I went that route in
> anticipation of removing support for that, with the benefit of not
> having to make the test more complicated.
Right,
Ralph wrote:
> I thought the test should change to handle no iconv, iconv, and ice-age
> iconv
As in, now it doesn't handle the no-iconv case? I went that route in
anticipation of removing support for that, with the benefit of not
having to make the test more complicated.
David
--
Hi Ken,
> David wrote:
> > restores the old behavior of the test in that respect.
I thought the test should change to handle no iconv, iconv, and ice-age
iconv, but...
> Should I just spin another 1.7.1 release candidate?
...yes, please. 1.8 can revisit what tests are doing something useful
