Daniel

My point was not to change the changeset your approved but add new ones 
that convert our deprecated
to the one proposed by andreas and implemented by brent. What I was 
proposing was then to include this changeset
as the KCP because if I want to use, I need it.

Stef


On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 03:42 PM, Stephane Ducasse wrote:

> 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.
>>>>
>>
>
>