On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 04:22:07AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:47:23PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > While the discussion is still ongoing about the "current" keyword, it > > seems that everyone agrees with the other changes which are only loosely > > related. Can we proceed with these, until we agree on how "current" > > should be replaced? > > No objections.
None here either. wrt the "current" thingie, I may have a proposal ready soon, I just need to polish the details, and look how "hard" it would be to upgrade the dh_py* tools to them. Well, I've a hard week of paid work ahead, so I don't expect to have it ready before next week. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgp7rR0AyoICF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
