> Actually, even for those that wuldn't need the patch ... as long as the
> "default behaviour" doesn't change, and unless there are no valid
> technical arguments around it, there is no reason why a patch shouldn't be
> included ...
Unless it's going to interfere with implementing the general case in the
future, making it a painful feature to keep backwards-compatibility with.
Which is what the discussion was about IIRC...
Chris
