10 Mar
2004
10 Mar
'04
9:56 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:42:00 +0100, Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
Premature implementation, sorry I should have been clearer.
I have no clear preference for Your suggestions or Tim's, they both have
drawbacks and advantages.
- Steve
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:44:26AM +0000, Steve Harris
wrote:
No, but it would be a fork if Tom went and implemented something that we
later didnt use.
But it will use up two flags that may be needed
later and may clash with
future extensions, or produce binary imcompatibility. Not to mention that
it is effectivly a fork in LADSPA.
There are still 20 bits left. And we can reserve #31 for a version jump anyway.
And I think 1.1 -> 1.2 is not a fork, it isn't meant to be anyway. I think this
is a very, very bad idea.
Do you mean the proposal, or any premature implementation ?