Re: [Bug: 21.4.18] site-lisp not in load-path
Michael Sperber wrote:
>For packages built entirely by third parties, the following
transition
>strategy is easy to implement and essentially riskless but was vetoed
>at the brainstorm stage by Mike (and I think Ben) several years ago
>(and ignored by everybody else).
>
>
I don't remember ever having seen it. I'm not exactly falling in love
with it at first sight, but I don't see any reason for vetoing it
right there.
Could you summarize what problem you're trying to solve here? I'm a
little lost.
Hi Mike:
Who are you asking that to? Are you wondering about the original bug report
or Stephen's post?
Thanks,
Rodney