Quoting "Joe Orton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'd rather the decision was made by those who are more familiar with this code than I. The fact that this change apparently does break an existing caller does seem to back up the "API change" argument: http://markmail.org/message/xjgaampnoru67pxr
I wasn't aware of that one, but yeah, if it things like this a possible, we should most definitely not backport. (I'm guessing the failure here is not related the fix in pre_cleanup implementation (r678139), given very recent dates in the mail thread).
I think that makes sense, so long as you're sure that the respool design will solve the set of problems with reslist that people have seen; it would be good to hear from Mladen and Chris on this.
Not sure at all. That's why I put your ideas into a patch, so that everyone can test :-)
-- Bojan
