On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 04:19:41 PM you wrote:
> Whilst i'd normally entirely agree that this update poses scope for
> concern, the positives outweigh these concerns. I understood that this
> was the primary reason this issue was progressed to the TB for
> discussion.
Would you please point me to the discussion? My recollection is that the
discussion was about handling dependencies. Perhaps I'm confusing this with
something else.
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 04:19:41 PM you wrote:
> Whilst i'd normally entirely agree that this update poses scope for
> concern, the positives outweigh these concerns. I understood that this
> was the primary reason this issue was progressed to the TB for
> discussion.
Would you please point me to the discussion? My recollection is that the
discussion was about handling dependencies. Perhaps I'm confusing this with
something else.