Version 2.2.2 has been released

[Alan DeKok]

Matthew Newton wrote:
> Is there any way that condition (priority <= 0) can ever be false?

  I'll take a look.

> It's subsequenty set to c->actions[result] on line 825, which is
> then tested on line 832, but at 846 we jump back to 'redo', which
> immediately sets it back to -1 again.
> 
> So the condition on 806 _looks_ redundant? It wasn't there in the
> v2.2.0 test:

  The code has changed for the better.  But there may be cruft left over
from intermediate steps.

  Alan DeKok.