On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:27 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Vimal,
>
> ?> Any conclusion has been reached reagarding this patch...?
>
> We've been working to resolve some of the issues people raised (for
> example, a public explanation on why the patch is needed). We have
> also been working towards an improved version of the patch. Sorry it's
> taking so long, but we hope to be able to post a new patch soon.
Is there any problem in previous patch, which you looking to fix in
the new version? Or these are all non-technical issues.
Can I take this patch for as of now?
-vimal
>
> Cheers, Tridge
>
--
---
Regards,
\/ | |\/| /-\ |_
____ __o
------ -\<,
----- ( )/ ( )
Hi Vimal,
> Is there any problem in previous patch, which you looking to fix in
> the new version? Or these are all non-technical issues.
The previous patch is fine, although as several people pointed out it
lacked a public explanation of why it is needed. We are working on
fixing that. We are also working towards the release of a new patch
that has some advantages in terms of what functionality is lost when
the patch is enabled.
> Can I take this patch for as of now?
yes, there are no issues with the patch we sent that would prevent
anyone using it, it just lacks an explanation and loses more
functionality than is strictly necessary.
Cheers, Tridge