On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:39:19AM -0600, Edgar Friendly wrote: > I guess you're arguing that this particular > naming scheme will have to be changed to fit the more generic > implementation, but we might as well test this simple command to see > the usefulness/repurcussions of it before going all the way. > If we have to break compatibility, so be it. we're still way before 1.0, > and this is a minor command.
My point is, all we need to do is a search-replace on this patch, and we can *avoid* breaking backwards compatability in the future. Can you think of a good reason *not* to do it? Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com] Latest Project http://cematics.com/kanzi Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
