At 09:49 PM 7/27/2006 -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote: >On 7/27/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: >> >>Personally, I would prefer to see it properly fixed in 2.5 rather than >>having to rip it out. It's more work for me to create the proper fix than >>it is to just work around it in my code, but it seems a more righteous >>labor, if you know what I mean. It also means that already-shipped and >>distributed versions of my code would work with the 2.5 release. > >Based on this comment, is it really acceptable to just document a >behaviour change? ISTM there should really only be 2 choices: fix >2.5 properly or revert the change. This seemed to be Armin's >position. Well, it's a moot question since nobody has volunteered to update the docs. Fixing it and reverting it are the only options unless somebody steps up to do the doc work. I'll happily fix it or revert it, just tell me which one is the approved course of action and I'll get started. :)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4