=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote: > > * Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file > > and vice-versa :) > > As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 -> 2.0 -> 1.3. > So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for possible 1.3 changes, but not > vice versa ;-) >
That's true... now that we're opening 1.3 back up for some development/enhancements, looking into stuff that was added in 2.x and whether they make sense (or are feasible) for 1.3 is a good idea. However, not everyone who works on 1.3 also follows 2.0 or even bothers with the 2.x CVS, so they will not be following 1.3 specific stuff in the 2.x STATUS file. 1.3 has its own STATUS file which should be used. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
