-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> > > As much as I loved to have this thing renamed, why didn't we do this > > > *before* we released 3.0? Or to quote you from bug 3668: "there's *no > > > way* I'd be happy making any of these changes before 4.0.0 ;)" > > > (Actually, the "no way" is exaggerated but I don't like the idea at > > > this point). > > > > Well, that's a different kettle of fish -- bug 3668 is changing > > configuration file paths, this is changing a class name, and ensuring > > that backwards compatibility is preserved for that change. > > That other bug was also about changing something newly introduced where we > wouldn't have to watch out for backwards compatilility :) > > Whatever, what I wanted to say is that I'm not opposed to the idea itself > and especially if it has any speed and memory advantages I'm all for it. > I'm just afraid that such a major change at this early point might brake at > some unexpected place as much as we try to stay backwards-compatible. Yeah, I think at this point we have 3 devs saying -1, so I don't think it's going to happen anyway ;) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFBWz1TQTcbUG5Y7woRAqWUAJ9s42vW4bfMzCXb8ZbrxLGkr2/yvwCffIqm o8S977wFZaCeqR3WwjKe4TQ= =vSnU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
