Carlo Arenas [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:27 AM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I had an impression that it was claimed that without this, the other
weatherbaloon for "for (type var=..." would not fly in some of the
jobs we have at CI?
It wouldn't if we have a CI job that tests with gcc < 5 but the last
version of that job died with travis-ci.org
I was wondering how Dscho's test was not failing, and that is an
easy answer to that question ;-)
If we wanted to resurrect that CI job, we can always add it in the
CI definition anyway, so I am OK with that, too.
Thanks.