Peter Lawler spake unto us the following wisdom:
> ... coz I'm confused as to whether gaim is interested, or not, and hence=
> haven't submitted. I know you are, Tim, but it just felt to me that the=
> rest weren't even up for a *simple* fix for 1.x or even 2.x (assuming no=
> other privacy will be done for 2.x). Lack of roadmap, and all. But I'm=20
> happy to supply what I can.
I can't speak for other developers (well, I could, and of course they
would be beholden by my word, but I won't), but as to myself:
While I might not personally spend time on fixes that are in some sense
"dead-end" (in this case, due to be completely rewritten), I see no rea-
son to reject patches for such fixes, assuming that their integration
isn't too much work. For example, I am currently putting off several
changes to the Tcl plugin to fix very real limitations and bugs, includ-
ing 64-bit cleanliness, pending some changes slated to happen before
2.0; however, if someone walked up with a working and clean patch for
Tcl to make it 64-bit clean, I would accept it. I mean, actually, I
would leave it to rot in the patch tracker like everything else Luke
assigns to me, but I would honestly intend to accept it. Likewise, I
think a privacy or status patch submitted to 1.x which is clearly bene-
ficial and not burdensome to integrate should, and would, be accepted.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764