On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 15:54 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option. > > > > Absolutely. > > I must say that my interest in this stuff is down in > needs-an-electron-microscope-to-locate territory. down() and up() work > just fine and they're small, efficient, well-debugged and well-understood. > We need a damn good reason for taking on tree-wide churn or incompatible > renames or addition of risk. What's the damn good reason here? >
**** > Please. Go fix some bugs. We're not short of them. **** I'd give that the quote of the day! -- Steve
