On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:21 AM, LUK ShunTim wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 02:39 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> I instead think that NEW behavior should match the proposed behavior
>> of the other 2 (DESCRIBENEW and NEWDETAIL).
>>
>> On another level, I even think that those other 2 comma
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:21 AM, LUK ShunTim wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 02:39 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> I instead think that NEW behavior should match the proposed behavior
>> of the other 2 (DESCRIBENEW and NEWDETAIL).
>>
>> On another level, I even think that those other 2 comma
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 02:39 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> I instead think that NEW behavior should match the proposed behavior
> of the other 2 (DESCRIBENEW and NEWDETAIL).
>
> On another level, I even think that those other 2 commands should go,
> in favor of NEW -v1 and NEW -v2 respectiv
I instead think that NEW behavior should match the proposed behavior
of the other 2 (DESCRIBENEW and NEWDETAIL).
On another level, I even think that those other 2 commands should go,
in favor of NEW -v1 and NEW -v2 respectively, since they are simply
more verbose forms of the same. What you thiink
4 matches
Mail list logo