I will wait a bit more and collect a list of essential action to the bug entry
I created.
Stef
On Aug 9, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> 2011/8/9 Stéphane Ducasse :
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>>
>>> 2011/8/9 Stéphane Ducasse :
Hi
I woul
On Aug 9, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Gary Chambers wrote:
>> Note that the menu titles are misleading.
>> In previous implementation, 'Implementors of...(m)' did mean
>> implementor of this message or any message called by this method.
>> In current implementation, 'Implementors of...(m)' does mean
>> imp
2011/8/9 Stéphane Ducasse :
>
> On Aug 9, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/9 Stéphane Ducasse :
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I would like that we do an analysis of what should stay in implementors
>>>
>>> Here are the menus in 1.2 and 1.4
>>>
>>
>> Note that the menu titles are misleading.
>>
Note that the menu titles are misleading.
In previous implementation, 'Implementors of...(m)' did mean
implementor of this message or any message called by this method.
In current implementation, 'Implementors of...(m)' does mean
implementor of this message and only this message.
Same for 'senders
On Aug 9, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> 2011/8/9 Stéphane Ducasse :
>> Hi
>>
>> I would like that we do an analysis of what should stay in implementors
>>
>> Here are the menus in 1.2 and 1.4
>>
>
> Note that the menu titles are misleading.
> In previous implementation, 'Implemen
2011/8/9 Stéphane Ducasse :
> Hi
>
> I would like that we do an analysis of what should stay in implementors
>
> Here are the menus in 1.2 and 1.4
>
Note that the menu titles are misleading.
In previous implementation, 'Implementors of...(m)' did mean
implementor of this message or any message cal
