> Sorry, badly phrased reply. I didn't mean to imply it was a bad idea, but > you didn't explain at all why 4, and not 3 or 6, or 42 ? If it's good with > 4, it ought to be better with more, right ? any data point or rationale for > choosing 4 ?
Why does Ted have to explain his heuristic? Should all pkg_add design changes have to undergo the same public scrutiny? Should do we go through the last 10 commits and create a fuss? Chill dude. 4 looks good to me. Shrug.
