John Hardin wrote ... (6/11/2009 4:21 PM): > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, John Rudd wrote: > >> As I've said, I don't really have a plan to incorporate the patch >> into the main dist. > > You probably should. It doesn't prevent you from pursuing your design > changes, and it would fix the problem for those who are experiencing > the problem today. > > Is it truly *that* onerous to produce a 0.9 tarball that includes the > patch, either as a standalone file or applied to the sources? > > As a plus, that would create a dist file with a newer date to reassure > people that it's still an active development project. Frankly, it seems to me that it's taken more time to argue why it won't be incorporated into the dist than it would have taken just to have done it.
Granted I understand the vision moving forward, but I suspect many more people have hit this issue than is reflected via complaints on this list. I know we had this issue and never posted about it. It only takes a couple minutes at best to fix. John makes a very solid point about a new build / date indicating it is still an active plugin. I've seen questions on other lists asking if it was still actively maintained.
