On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Christopher Maynard
<Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Is there any reason to keep "-G fields2" since field 8 (blurb) is redundant
> with field 6 (also blurb) and we have "-G fields3", which does not contain
> any redundant information?
>
> I propose either:
> 1) Eliminating the current "-G fields2", then renaming "-G fields3" to the
> new "-G fields2" so that we would only have 2 reports, "-G fields" and "-G
> fields2", or
>
> 2) Just adding the 2 extra fields from the current "-G fields3" report to
> the "-G fields" report and eliminating both "-G fields2" and "-G fields3"
> reports.
These are quite old (2004, 2005) and the original commits don't give
any indication why they weren't just added to "-G fields", but
presumably there was a reason. Gilbert was the original author,
perhaps he can shed some light.
If there isn't a strong reason to keep them as-is, I vote we merge
everything together into "-G fields".
Evan
