Ok brent can you submit it so that we can use it.

Stef

On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 02:00 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> I wont refuse it if we do it this way, but it seems to me like
> complicating things by adding you guys into the loop too early... Brent
> or someone will post a patch, one of you guys can review it as usual,
> and we'll get it into the image. After it's in, you can update the KCP
> stuff.
>
> Don't see any reason to break with procedure. Am I missing something?
> (I'm not particularly interested in starting to shove any and all
> changes into the KCP stream I specifically committed to check - the
> point was to focus my effort).
>
> Daniel
>
> Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>> Daniel
>>
>> as suggested by andreas we will use it for the KCP. So once this is
>> stable I could simply add it into the KCP stream and create a new
>> changeset that update all the KCP deprecated to use it.
>>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>>
>>> When the definitive patch is ready, we'll harvest it and make it
>>> policy.
>>> We'll also need a clear explanation of the usage pattern (with
>>> example?)
>>> to put up on the swiki somewhere.
>>>
>>> Maybe someone from the Documentation team can help with hooking it up
>>> in
>>> all the right places...
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> Brent Pinkney <pinkney_b at aircom.co.za> wrote:
>>>> Ok, how do we get this idea/policy into 3.6alpha so that everyone
>>>> (not just KCP) can use it.
>>>
>