diffoscope 77 in stretch or not?

[Ximin Luo]

Holger Levsen:
> 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.
> 

I understand. Yeah, we don't need to change that. I was just voicing my opinion on "the way we got there" as well.

X

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git