Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joe Schaefer wrote: >> Perhaps this effort would be a good candidate for >> a short-lived "pool-scope-2.x-unstable" branch.
[...] > You suggest the branch because we aren't sure that's the way we will > do it? Or is it because instead of sending patches one can freely > commit things and get others the changes right away? Yes- I hate seeing good efforts stall out while waiting for consensus to form. > Otherwise what's wrong with gradual changes, starting with APR::Table > and moving to other classes and refactoring on the way... Nothing, if there's ready consensus that your APR::Table patch is the right approach. Of course you have my +1 to commit it to trunk and whittle away at your heart's content. > In any case I hope that others will comment on the problem in > hand and give their insights on the proposed solutions... Right, but in the event that doesn't happen before you've lost your zeal, I suggest making a branch before simply giving up on it. -- Joe Schaefer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
