On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, the 128 character limit is simply lame (other than for
> unsolvable implementation/performance complexity which I doubt is the
> case here), and if that constraint is put in by the implementation,
> than the implementation is busted and should be reworked until it's
> right.
After some reflection, I realized this was an overly strong statement
and impolite to the OP. It's easy to yarp from the gallery with the
other peanuts :-). It's not the implementation I have an issue with,
just the _idea_ that we should be restricted to small payloads for
religious reasons...until that came upI was already scheming on how to
both extend the patch to be more flexible in terms of payload size,
and to backpatch and test it on 8.4 (no point if the community has no
interest however). In any event, sorry for the strong words.
merlin
