-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:29:22 -0400 Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 06 May 2007 4:22:44 pm Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:13:56 -0400 > > > > Dan Meltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So you want users to have to explicitly acknowledge all ewarn > > > > notices? Now *that*'s a way of making the system useless by > > > > overusing it. > > > > > > Err, warn notices are supposed to be important warnings. If they are > > > not it sounds like a good job for QA. > > > > That's a completely different degree of importance. > > Sounds like its the right degree of importants for deprecated things upstream > to me. Dan, Ciaran, Perhaps I'll come across as a spoil sport here, but is there any chance you could take your conversation to IRC (or to whatever)? It would go faster, and if you can reach some common level of agreement, then you can usefully post that to this list. > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > Regards. - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-ecc01.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGPkM9Qa6M3+I///cRAi1mAKCjjlYDckKoENeGFLjLkaWwH1ynFQCgkOq/ +WdqXmqhJpbiuFFgEJQeSyI= =zykl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- éí¢^¾§¶(® X§X¬
