On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:51:25PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote: > Hey Nicholas, > > Just to be clear, I wasn't directing my concern at anyone, nor am I > not glad for the work, heck you've probably contributed more to this project > than me. It was just a general concern that I felt should be thought about.
I've contributed too high a "talk to do" ratio than I'd like. And I fear I've upset this Finnish guy by mentioning decaf, so I might have to appease him by contributing more patches to perl5. :-) I was also feeling guilty that I've effectively also suggested that compiler warnings would be a good thing long term, volunteered to clean the current ones up, and then found once compiler warnings were turned on that there are many many of the things, that it's a far bigger job than I'd realised to clean them up (without introducing bugs) and that I'm not going to be able to deliver on cleaning them all up in the short term. (Or my between the lines position of getting to zero warnings and then deciding that all new warnings were introduced by code patches, not my patches to makefiles, so I don't feel duty bound to clean them up, and go off and hack perl5 again instead) > I could also be overly paranoid. No no no. There is no such thing as overly paranoid. Even now the bugs are breeding, conspiring, out to get each and every one of us... Nicholas Clark -- ENOJOB http://www.ccl4.org/~nick/CV.html
