Serialisation bug with abstract classes

Mon Dec 22 16:49:00 GMT 2003

On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 04:49:19PM +0100, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
>> > It was broken before too, otherwise I would have never thought tp dp
> > some work on it.
>> OK, it's completely fine then.
>> > The reason to this not at once is to understand the
> > code more that gets changed and why. Well its CVS HEAD. ITs known to
> > cause problems. Nobody really expects it to work 100% always. Its for
> > development.
>> Agreed. It's still better to avoid *knowingly* breaking it when you can, 
> isn't it?

replacing non-working code by other not-yet working (known as work in
progress) is imo much better then leave known broken code. this shows
that someone is working on it.
Michael