William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I should be able to blow some holes in the patch, but I can't do that
right now while spending so many hours vetting our coming 2.0.44
release, and I consider it more than a little gratuitous that you presume
lazy consensus on a patch that I'd vetoed in theory.
completely different approach, completely different patch, therefore no standing pat. and, by the way, no 'vetoes in theory,' either. you examine this on its own merits; don't try to grandfather it. if you can prove a problem with it, it'll get reverted; but i'm not going to sit on a working solution that *i* can't find any problems with just because *you* don't have time to test it. there are other people here.
greg, will you try/test this patch?
