On Saturday 06 December 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 05:56:56PM +0200, Dan Pascu wrote: > > IMO, hiding the command will not motivate anyone to fix it sooner, > > on the contrary it will most likely make people ignore it to the > > point when someone will say "Why do we keep this hidden command > > anyway?" If anyone is seriously considering fixing it at some > > point, keeping it around as a constant reminder will at some point > > bother someone enough to fix it. > > Indeed, what I'd really like is for put to be removed until someone > writes an implementation that behaves like get and has similar > resource consumption. Hiding it means the code stays available but > isn't advertised, because currently it's just a proof-of-concept stub.
I would rather have something suboptimal that I can use right now, than some innexistent perfect implementation in an uncertain future. -- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
