Jeff Trawick wrote: > > Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I appreciate that you are trying to moderate my usage of the -1 (veto), > > but feel it is my duty to inform the list as soon as possible that I > > wouldn't be happy with this big of a change. > > Maybe a veto wasn't appropriate, but it seemed clear to me that a > number of people would rather have the new code side by side with the > old for a while, and Brian didn't seem disturbed about that notion at > all. Hopefully nobody will actually go remove worker as soon as > Brian's code is committed :) >
If so, then *that* can be vetoed :) -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
