> I kind of did ignore it, because as I understood what he meant was to use 
> `g_error()` or alike and crash Geany, which sounded kind of harsh/insane. 
> This was possibly a misunderstanding on my part though.

Fair point.  Maybe a more clear comment on why you thought it was a bad idea, 
or why @kugel- thought it was could have made things clearer.  But well, it's 
harder to see how other will understand us, that's for sure.

> Since it was such a trivial patch and the number of people who will encounter 
> this code path so small, I figured I'd just make an "executive decision" so 
> to speak.

Which does make sense, otherwise if nobody "feels strongly" nothing ever 

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Reply via email to