On 9/5/06, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The biggest part of the work needed is to write the documentation ---
> but we'd have to do that for Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks
> docs presumably fall under GPL along with the code.

I'll write the documentation, either for the code as it is, or for any
replacement we decide to use.

I didn't submit documentation (or a Makefile, uninstall_otherlock.sql,
etc.) only because I didn't know if anything was going to be done with
otherlock now. I just wanted to mention the existence of the code.

> So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
> bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something
> cleaner and suitable for the long run with not very much more
> effort.

Fine with me. Two questions:

- Where would the code live, if it were in core?
- Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message?

are we still moving forward with this? I would love to see this go in for 8.2.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to