William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I consider it more than a little gratuitous that you presume lazy consensus on a patch that I'd vetoed in theory. I then agreed
oh, and by the way? i said i'd presume lazy consensus in a couple of days, not right now. so i'm allowing plenty of time for discussion, and not jsut blasting it in there.
and yes, i'm going in a straight line because this is a *real* problem *right now*, not a theoretical one that *might* happen later. it should have been fixed years ago -- there are prs about it going 'way back -- but 'we've always done it that way' doesn't hold water as a reason for delaying a 'good enough' fix 'til perfection is achieved.
