"Mark J. Nelson" <Mark.J.Nelson at Sun.COM> writes: > OK, I somewhat reviewed it. :) > > Why are you unhappy with the changes? They seem more straighforward > than the existing code, and eliminate some bothersome (and obviously > buggy) reimplementation of parenttip identification logic. >
So, Mark and I talked about this somewhat on IRC, and what is bothering me doesn't seem to bother him that much (or perhaps not enough that he sees the alternative as better?) As such, and because I largely solicited comment on this, rather than review, I'd now like to request review. Note that #473 requires changes in this same basic area, these diffs do not attempt to account for that, that's something for #473 to figure out. Since this (#474) has been hit in actual production use, I'd prefer to see this fixed before that (rather than together), and hopefully fixed before it picks up another victim. -- Rich
