diffoscope 77 in stretch or not?

Tue Feb 14 20:53:48 UTC 2017

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 08:44:00PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
> I do think it's OK to try to support diffoscope 67 for 2 years because it's been quite well tested.

well, yes… but…

> I understand that 77 fixes quite a lot of bugs over 67…

77 *exists* and is quite probably a lot better than 67, so I now think we
should strive for 77 (or 77++ if needed) in stretch… I like 77, I just don't
like the way we got there. But now that we have it, no need to hide it.

-- 
cheers,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/reproducible-builds/attachments/20170214/1afca521/attachment.sig>