On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup, that's what prompted the post, actually. I had started from the > point of view that external attachments would be optional. That brings > quite a lot of complexity, so I'm basically asking if there's any > objections to moving wholly over to this new strategy? > > B. >
Not sure what is the startegy. I think I'm +1 to have first the attachments system pluggable. Then people could hack. - benoit
