Around about 08/02/11 01:58, Daniel Shahaf typed ...
I'm concerned; that doesn't sound like a good process to develop a patch. Normally backporting a patch is a matter of finding N applicable revisions and merging them... but it sounds that here you're re-developing the feature from scratch.
Which is why this route wasn't my first choice. The required changes look as if they're too far down to line to apply separately; they require previous, possibly unrelated, revisions.
I'll take the time later to see if I can figure out exactly how many trunk revisions I'd need.
If it won't compile on windows, for example, I'd be concerned that you introduced run-time bugs on unix.
I poorly phrased it; all I meant was, I'm likely going to be unable to verify that it builds on Windows. The code's actually not as ifdef'd as it first appears, and a quick walk-though makes me think it *should* be OK. I just won't be able to check myself.
-- [neil@fnx ~]# rm -f .signature [neil@fnx ~]# ls -l .signature ls: .signature: No such file or directory [neil@fnx ~]# exit
