On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:52:44AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> If this is so that you can skip explaining stuff and just ponder on,
> then no.
It's not. It's easier to read a branch than it is to read a patch.
And also it would be good to have help on some tedious things like
the fact kbsequence::getiso() is totally screwed up etc.
> What you cannot expect, is that I (or anybody else), just agrees with
> all you (or Herbert for that matter), just because you have something
> that works and have seemingly done for some extended time. You must be
> both prepared to defend you decisions, and also to change you code.
Certainly. I don't think I have failed to attempt to
a) defend what I've done
b) change what I've done
so far ... I am sturdy enough to stand a little criticism I think :)
A patch this big is bound to lose the wood for the trees to some degree.
And furthermore I'm writing in a language I don't really know very
well...
> (PSS! I will not really deny you creating a branch for this, but I do
> not see how that will change this dispute.)
Post Script Script ?? The blood must be causing oxygen deprivation or
something...
regards
john
--
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils."
- Hector Louis Berlioz
