On Jan 15, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Thanks. For my edification: are such trivial changes deserving of
> RFCs? Perfect for RFCs? Good for RFCs while I'm still getting my
> feet wet, but unnecessary once I get the hang of things?
I think that once you're comfortable you can omit RFCs for these kinds
of small things.
> 1.4 was poor counting on my part: 1.3+1=1.4. The new math. I
> guess actually 1.3+1=1.3.1. I'm fine with 1.3.1. It's a small,
> safe change. The sooner the better. But, I'm open to expert opinion.
What I was trying to say (but said poorly) in my previous mail was: if
this change is really only code cleanup and has no other effect on the
v1.3 series, then just leave it on the trunk and let it go into v1.4.
I say this because the v1.3 series is effectively done; there won't be
much/any new development on it from here on out.
If there's a reason to put it into v1.3.1 (e.g., it's in the
performance-critical path and the new one is better), then put it in