On 07 Jan 2011, at 9:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
If caution is to be exercised for other reasons, such as losing
data in the event of a
crash, that's a separate issue, and should be handled separately.
It should be used with caution. Instead of arguing, replace the
caution.
Or I'm happy to revert.
I've got a better idea. Why not collaborate with the other people in
this project instead of attempting to bully them with the threat of
yet-another-veto? Use rpluem's email as an example of what to do, he
suggested a potential alternative warning, and invited others to chime
in with an improvement. This resulted in r1056693, and a resolution to
the issue.
Regards,
Graham
--
