Andrew Pimlott wrote:
| > But it seems that I'm alone in the ``deep understanding'' of the
| > underlying assumptions of Jitterbug.  I wonder if Andrew Tridgell and
| > Dan Shearer share this sensation with me...  Or maybe it's I that just
| > don't get it, and the `Message type's are just a useless concept in
| > Jitterbug, that's going to be dropped in the next release... :-(
| 
| Isn't it clear that the inability to search on two types (alternately, the
| lack of a closed type) is a simple and obvious deficiency in jitterbug,
| and that fixing it would a) take less time than this argument and b) make
| everybody happy? 

GNATS uses a two-dimensional classification system: you have a category
(util, io. lang, etc.) and a state (open, ignored, closed, etc.).
GNATS is highly regimented in that state transitions are well-defined; Jitterbug
is not.

It seems that the fundamental problem here is that classification is really
a 2D problem, and we are solving it with a 1D tool.

(Note: I am not recommending that we move to GNATS.  It's a beast.)