> On 21.12.2010 20:44, Al Le wrote:
> > So do I understand correctly that no consensus has been reached and
> > that the patch will eternally rot on the tracker?
>
>
> From what I've gathered from the thread, that's because we haven't
> discussed or considered proposed alternatives. Instead the author
> insisted on defending the patch as it is now based on his very own use
> case (which is perfectly reasonable). However there are some people
> unhappy with it, including me.
>
> Best regards.
If theres a lot of use cases, and the ones the patch currently implements are
implemented well, it should be committed and the additional cases handled in
future patches.
