On Mar 28, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
David M Johnson wrote:
I disagree with each of your objections, but I'm not going to call
for a vote on this yet because of the timing. I'll respect this as
a veto. Thanks for taking a closer look at the code.
I still feel that all of my objections are quite valid, but i am
willing to make an exception in this case and change my vote to +0
as long as it is clearly explained to anyone wanting to use this
code that these 2 services are not supported in any way and that we
may make any changes to them in the future, particularly changing
the url endpoints.
Even though I disagree, I really do appreciate and respect your
concerns.
It was my mistake proposing this so late in the game and now I'm
basically out of time since I'm out of the the office for the test of
the week. So, I'll bring this up next month and add the warnings that
you and Anil suggested to the appropriate docs.
- Dave
