-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 2. There are two issues being confused here. One is the behaviour of > with respect to files in the future, and the other is the search path > ordering. There should be two bug reports. Dirk also thinks I'm confusing two issues, but they are in fact related. If the search path were the intended one, then I would not have noticed a slowdown when using files in the future, because octave would find the f.m file in the current directory immediately. If there were two bug reports, I would agree that the first one could be closed. But since the first problem would not happen if the second is fixed, I don't think it is worth to report it again in a separate bug. We have the "retitle" command. > 3. We generally have a rule that says package maintainers get to make > decisions about their packages. This is not universally applied, and > is not yet formal - for example, certain bugs have been left open as > wishlist items against the wishes of maintainers. Yes I know at least one example of that (#3253 ;-) It would be worth to clearly state when a wishlist item have to be left open against the wishes of maintainers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNSqHIiqK7IlOjMLFAQG+qAQAtiV8iOt4sh0EqaUgu1MZ4wTMi86VGjhE ORuk8mGSbQWsc4AT9GP7rFqmJFeltKpjR0JcBOzHVlE4qd72p/c+2TOtaGFDTV+L QzgkJWo1hd0dbnyGVmT9nHcBldFj2h+o3WZw5et6cXl7q1+2HJnAofnZdAVLVe1Y v4H+e5T/Eqg= =/2cs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
