On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 22:26 -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I don't think 0.3.24 "needs" either of those pulls.  Fixing
> downgrade-to-0.3.24 is low on the priority list, because
> downgrade-to-something-before-0.3.24 is just about as likely, and that
> has to do something mostly reasonable.
Really, well I disagree but OK, 0.3.24 it is.