Daniel Russel wrote: > Looks good except I think that sending paches to impdev is not a great > way to raise changes for discussion. An English description and > proposed function signatures (if non trivial functions are propsed) is > probably more useful ((and both patches and English is a bit much)
Exactly - that's what I say, isn't it? Maybe the text is misleading in some way? I just say "discuss these interfaces on the imp-dev mailing list" not the implementations. Or perhaps you're referring to a different part of the text?
Ben