Paul Rohr wrote: > Unless one of the usual refactoring experts is ready to weigh in (soon) with > concrete suggestions about how Tomas' code could be factored even more > cleanly, it sounds like it's time to find ways to get this into the tree. I bite to the title, but I still think we simply should put it in. The longer we wait... If it turns out to be really bad (not that I think it will be, mind you) we can always fix it later. It is however hard to keep a patch up-to-date with our current commit speed. :-) I think it's better to do it, so just do it. /Mike
- RE: version 1.0 Paul Rohr
- Re: version 1.0 Sam TH
- Re: version 1.0 Martin Sevior
- Re: version 1.0 Jesper Skov
- integrating bidi (was Re: version 1.0) Paul Rohr
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: version 1.0) Tomas Frydrych
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: version 1.0) Sam TH
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: version 1... Jesper Skov
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: vers... Mike Nordell
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: version 1.0) Paul Rohr
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: version 1... Mike Nordell
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: vers... Martin Sevior
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: ... Sam TH
- Re: integrating bidi (was Re: ... Leonard Rosenthol
- RE: integrating bidi (was Re: version 1.0) WJCarpenter
- socks ? on : off (was RE: integrating bidi ... Paul Rohr
- RE: socks ? on : off (was RE: integrati... WJCarpenter
- Re: socks ? on : off (was RE: inte... Sam TH
- RE: socks ? on : off (was RE: inte... Martin Sevior
- RE: socks ? on : off Paul Rohr
- Re: RE: version 1.0
