Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> Regarding feedback on patch - I think I expressed my concerns:
> - more analysis and understanding of security implications
> - if possible to do it at a different (higher) level
> - if it can be done in a modular fashion, i.e. keeping the default impl the
> way it is,
As everyone will see ... I reverted. Its not the end of the world if
this gets in since I can easily maintain a private version with alias
support for myself. I thought it was a helpful bloatage for others. It
might be worthwhile keeping the discussion active for the moment if
anyone else has o
On 9/15/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> >
> > Well, regarding the veto - it's simple. I second Remy's opinion that the
> > veto is valid
> > and the change is not right at the moment, and I guess that should
> close
> > this discussion.
> >
> > The discus
Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> Well, regarding the veto - it's simple. I second Remy's opinion that the
> veto is valid
> and the change is not right at the moment, and I guess that should close
> this discussion.
>
> The discussion about whether to add such a feature or not - I think a simple
> vo
