On Jun 29, 2016 5:57 PM, "Yann Ylavic" <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:40 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > I'd prefer if you would not invalidate a vote that others present. > > Sorry about that, I thought it was an oversight. > > > > > I support the original patch. I reviewed and accept the amended patch also, > > but it hasn't seen nearly the same scrutiny as the widely adopted patch > > presented in the PR. > > > > You are free to vote for only the enhanced patch, of course, but whichever > > attains three reviews, be it only the tested patch or the improved variant, > > should be adopted just as soon as they are accepted. That's why I made the > > status vote cumulative, so people could accept one or all of these > > proposals. > > The issue is that the patch from PR 30144 is not really satisfactory > (there were some PR fixed in 2.4.x since then, as I noted), so I'm -1 > for it alone...
I hope the entire patch as reviewed is acceptable and gets a third vote... ...that said, did the patch introduce a regression? If not, it still represents an improvement, even if less than a full rewrite/perfect implementation. Cheers Bill
