--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, with the Damocle's sword hanging over my head > as soon as I > accidently overwrite something you've done. >
Jeremias, this sword of Damocle's you feel has nothing to do with me (I use clubs)--you are painting yourself into a corner with do-or-die layout changes. Me not improving what is currently there is only going to add to your pressure, because it removes something more decent for us to fall back on should what you have not work out. You do not have to merge your changes with mine, or with what's currently there. You are *replacing* classes, regardless of their contents, whether unimproved or improved code. I understand again that some changes I would like I may have to repeat as a result--I will happily do so. The complexity of what you're proposing is 1000x that of a fixed method or two that you're going to be tossing out anyway. You fail, its going to be be because of the 1000x, not because of my changes. But I am certain that the cleaner the to-be-replaced code is, the less pressure there will be on you and the rest of the team during this task. And no, there's nothing worth me vetoing in your changes. You will be providing us new advanced logic, which we all welcome. Yes, I may have a change or two I would like *implementation*-wise, but I can do that after your code is incorporated. Again, it is your new logic that we are all looking forward to. BTW--I see very little left for me to do in PSLM anyway. Regards, Glen
