On 20 October 2011 09:13, Thomas Adam <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:51:59AM -0700, elliot s wrote: >> Version 2.6.3: >> Previous versions only added the "(%t)" when there was a repeated name. >> The new code always adds it. > > This is not a bug, but rather very much by deliberate design. The old logic > tried to do this before but failed, and when I refactored everything I > fixed it. So this is how it's going to be with %t from now on.
i too liked the original behavior. Can you add it back please? Its not good that you reimplement features and remove functionality at the same time. How is this not a bug precisely? Harry
