Re: ENABLE review and a question

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@xxxxxxxx>]

Mark Crispin writes:
> General observation:
>
> What seems to be driving some of these proposals is "neat to have" 
> rather than "need to have".

I can see what you mean, although we may not agree on particulars.

The driving force behind this one is "CONDSTORE and ANNOTATE should not 
need to be enabled using side effects. Doing that once is OK, doing it 
twice is dubious, four or five times would be hideous" and so, after 
two use cases, you now see a proposal. Fee free to argue against it, or 
for alternatives, or whatever. It's a proposal, nothing more, nothing 
less.

Arnt