> Because we have to keep the old API working, and because duplicating code > everywhere is a bad thing.
How is it duplicated? This is new code. > And while we are on the topic, anything that is posted to the mailing > list is open for others to commit to the code base. That is how we work. > People here are expected to be part-time volunteers, so if one person does > 60% of the work and posts it, others should feel free to do the other 40% > and commit the sucker while the originator is sleeping. The only necessary > part is that it be appropriately attributed in Submitted By. If you go back and read my original post, you'll realize that the reason I posted it was so that I could get some feedback. If I thought it only needed one +1 I wouldn't have posted it. I don't think 2 days (partly over a weekend) is enough time for everyone to review a patch with such ugly side-effects. Furthermore, this patch still has outstanding issues which I think warrant discussion: - Will the log message confuse people? Greg suggests we drop the level down during forcefull restart/shutdown. - Does this work on all platforms (linux)? - Have we beaten this enough to call it release quality? > In this case, there is no excuse for sitting on a bug fix just because > there are stylistic issues about a patch. The appropriate thing to do > is remove the style changes and commit the fix. I don't think anyone was sitting on it for stylistic issues, where did you get that from? Besides, the commit message is inaccurate and partly incorrect. -aaron
