20 Oct
2008
20 Oct
'08
12:30 a.m.
> 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? The deleted part :-) I need to go to sleep.