[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: Re: co -d, modules -d, & Emptydir]

From: Paul Edwards
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: co -d, modules -d, & Emptydir]
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:05:09 GMT

"Derek Robert Price" <derek@ximbiot.com> wrote in message 
> > I have a slight bias towards accepting this enhancement. However, I
> > would like to hear what others think of it.
> Since Larry, Mark, and I now appear to mostly agree that this patch
> would be a move towards simplified code and consistent behavior, this
> brings up a secondary question:  Would this be appropriate for stable?
> I was leaning towards feature originally since it does involve a
> behavior change even if it is towards consistency and simplifies the
> source, but the more I have thought about it the more it seems to me to
> be a valid stable fix.

I'm not sure that I agree that the change itself is appropriate
(put me down as "no opinion"), but I do think that it is
appropriate to eliminate inconsistencies in stable, if you
think you have identified one.

The NEWS file is an appropriate place to identify the
behavioral change.

The goal, as I see it, is for stable to be seen as a good
product, rather than either a buggy feature-laden
product, or a dead and inconsistent product.  E.g. I
think that if someone makes rdiff take the same options
as diff, that should be part of stable.  At the moment it
is counter-intuitive (although perfectly understandable
from a programming history point of view).

BTW, did that patch I sent make it through with the
whitespace intact?

BFN.  Paul.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]