Hi Peter On 20.12.2002 00:30:13 Peter B. West wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > :-) Ok, you're sentenced to implement the same functionality in the > > trunk. I'm -0 for the inclusion in the branch as it sends the wrong > > message IMO. But I'm looking forward to seeing bidi support in action in > > the trunk. > > Jeremias, > > I would encourage Oleg to bring this functionality into HEAD.
Didn't I? :-) > If it > already exists in Oleg's working copy of the maint branch (for reasons > which have frequently been canvassed here), I think it would be churlish > of us to deny access to our faithful band of users. I would agree was it not for something that is an argument for the redesign. And read again, please. I wrote -0, not -1. I don't deny anything to anybody, just expressing an opinion. > So, fop-0_20_2-maintain +0. > > Peter > > > > On 19.12.2002 18:11:02 Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > > > >>Hello there! > >> > >>I know, shame on me, shame on me, but I've implemented partial bidi support in > >>the branch. Sorry, it was urgent commercial requirement. > >>It seems to be working ok (QA is still verifying it though), but of course > >>it's a patch actually and I don't like it much. My question is: should I > >>commit it to the branch codebase? I'm inclining to implement it in a clean way > >>in the trunk instead of extending/patching the branch. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
