On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Jamu Kakar <email address hidden> wrote:
> It's been awhile since I looked at this, so not surprised there's some
> bitrot... I guess one issue is that there's an old WADL here, whereas
> the WADL should probably be pulled dynamically. Does anyone know what
> we need to do to get this landed...? It's not clear to me anymore.
>
> I think my preference would be to fix the most important issues and
> get this merged. After that, we can iterate to improve the logic
> (it's a bit tricky in places).
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Jamu Kakar <email address hidden> wrote:
> It's been awhile since I looked at this, so not surprised there's some
> bitrot... I guess one issue is that there's an old WADL here, whereas
> the WADL should probably be pulled dynamically. Does anyone know what
> we need to do to get this landed...? It's not clear to me anymore.
>
> I think my preference would be to fix the most important issues and
> get this merged. After that, we can iterate to improve the logic
> (it's a bit tricky in places).
+1