On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:50 AM, bmorbach wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:02 -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
> > I'm mainly arguing that for most use cases, omitting the
> > timestamp wouldn't hurt/would be better.
> > Doing this upstream in javadoc seemed to be the most
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:02 -0700, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I'm mainly arguing that for most use cases, omitting the
> timestamp wouldn't hurt/would be better.
> Doing this upstream in javadoc seemed to be the most
> future-proof way, as it just flips the default.
>
