On 21.02.2008, at 11:14, Mike Schrag wrote:
> Honestly, it probably should be (or rather should have been,
> originally). For me, it falls into the "intends to replace system
> framework" category, so it works exactly as intended. You're
> welcome to rename it in your own deployment :)
The problem is, that it might not keep up with current development.
And I know what I can do locally for me, but I'm trying to find a way
to explain why it is as it is. And actually I find it really hard in
that case.
cug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Feb 21 2008 - 13:25:57 EST