On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:14:39PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:14:07AM +0200, Guillaume MM wrote: > > > > But besides that I agree with your suggestions. Thanks again for > > spending your time looking into this issue with so much care. > > Yes, it seems that Scott can be easily convinced by your constructed > arguments. > > "There is a bomb under our table, but we cannot remove it because it has > been there since 2011."
I think the situation is more like the following: There is a bomb under the table. We could put another similar bomb or not put another similar bomb. Your argument is that if we don't put another bomb well we should remove the first bomb also. Scott
