On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 07:56:21PM -0400, buginator wrote:
> I was tossing around the idea of porting over from trunk, the terrain
> renderer, and the tcmask support into the 2.X codebase. (Just a note
> on that, if we do go this route, then this could also be called 3.X
> instead of 2.X, and thi
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:56 PM, buginator wrote:
> I was tossing around the idea of porting over from trunk, the terrain
> renderer, and the tcmask support into the 2.X codebase. (Just a note
> on that, if we do go this route, then this could also be called 3.X
> instead of 2.X, and this propos
I was tossing around the idea of porting over from trunk, the terrain
renderer, and the tcmask support into the 2.X codebase. (Just a note
on that, if we do go this route, then this could also be called 3.X
instead of 2.X, and this proposed 2.4 would be 3.0.)
How many people would be against tha
