That would be cool, then we won't have two similar, but slightly
different plugins in the core. (I'm trying to avoid that unless there
are specific reasons why they *need* to be different.) It means the
individual plugins are more complex, but I think that's worth it.
-R
Jason Mills wrote:
>
I could if you like... I yanked around the internal's quite a bit on my
version of the plugin.
But it would be possible I suppose to swap which Net::SMTP class it uses
based on parameters.
On 05/11/2010 09:26 PM, Robert Spier wrote:
> Is it possible to merge this into smtp-forward and have config
Alright, i am if not convinced then at leadt outnumbered. :-) Let me
do some tests with the merges and I will make a new release shortly
and then do the perltidy.
--
http://localrobot.com/
On May 12, 2010, at 9:03, Charlie Brady > wrote:
+1
On Wed, 12 May 2010, Robin Bowes wrote:
> On 12/05/10 07:00, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> >
> > On May 11, 2010, at 21:25, Robert Spier wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone else have any opinions on doing a massive perltidy?
> >> I'm on the fence.
> >
> > I'm on the fence, too. My concern is mostly for
On May 11, 2010, at 11:00 PM, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> On May 11, 2010, at 21:25, Robert Spier wrote:
>
>> Does anyone else have any opinions on doing a massive perltidy? I'm
>> on the fence.
>
> I'm on the fence, too. My concern is mostly for the people with private
> patches / hacked up
On 12/05/10 07:00, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
>
> On May 11, 2010, at 21:25, Robert Spier wrote:
>
>> Does anyone else have any opinions on doing a massive perltidy?
>> I'm on the fence.
>
> I'm on the fence, too. My concern is mostly for the people with
> private patches / hacked up versions. (
