John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 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.
mmm
>> 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 :)
No, you haven't, and yes your are (it seems)
--
Lgb
