> On Wednesday November 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:31:14AM -0800, Lever, Charles wrote:
> > > so i don't remember why you are removing
> xdr_decode_string. are we sure
> > > that no-one will need this functionality in the future?
> it is harmless
> > > to remove
On Wednesday November 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:31:14AM -0800, Lever, Charles wrote:
> > so i don't remember why you are removing xdr_decode_string. are we sure
> > that no-one will need this functionality in the future? it is harmless
> > to remove today, but i wo
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:31:14AM -0800, Lever, Charles wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:13:14AM -0700, Lever, Charles wrote:
> >
> > > actually, can we hold off on this change? the RPC
> > transport switch will
> > > eventually need most of those EXPORT_SYMBOLs.
> >
> > Am I right to ass
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:13:14AM -0700, Lever, Charles wrote:
>
> > actually, can we hold off on this change? the RPC
> transport switch will
> > eventually need most of those EXPORT_SYMBOLs.
>
> Am I right to assume this will happen in the foreseeable future?
the first portion of the tran
