Conor MacNeill wrote: > Costin Manolache wrote: >> I'm +0 on your patch as a temporary solution, but I really >> want to later add the lazy loading. >> > > There are no "temporary" solutions, are there? If it is in a release, it > must be supported on an ongoing basis and at the very lest phased out with > due warning, etc.
If we think this is a valid use case and we agree we want to solve this problem - then the patch is a first step. It won't be the "final" solution until a release is made. > OTOH, if a feature is not in a release, there are no guarantees. Any > functionality in CVS head not in a release may or may not be included in a > release and may take a different form in the release. This principle was > not always adhered to in the past but I think we should make this a solid > rule for the future. That's my opinion as well, and the reason I called the patch "temporary" solution. I think we should also split the decision on what features we want to add from the decision on how to implement them. I think changing the static definition of tasks at startup is a good thing. I don't like a lot of things in the patch ( use of properties, etc )- but it's a start point. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
