© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #58)
> Daniel: Do we want the later patches (for correctness) on 1.9.1?
First of all, to be clear -- there's actually only one additional patch that'd be under consideration here, for the branches: attachment 363289 (and its backported-to-1.9.0 version, attachment 374325) All other patches here are either obsolete (from merging into a combined patch), already landed on all branches, or are for comm-central.
In response to Sam's question, I'm not really sure whether attachment 363289 is branch-appropriate. I haven't run into any crashes caused by its absence, and I'm not entirely sure in what situations it's needed. (Comment 22 suggests that SpiceBird needs it -- maybe Thunderbird as well?)
The patch author & reviewers would probably be better judges / vouchers than I, regarding the appropriateness on the branches.
(In reply to comment #59)
> If the later patches are landed on 1.9.1 please also land the fix in bug 502723
> that this bug introduced
That (minor) issue was actually from attachment 335369, the patch that's already included in both 1.9.1 and 1.9.0. Hence, I'm requesting branch approval on bug 502723's patch. (any further discussion on that should go on bug 502723)