Hi, On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 05:01:30PM +0100, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 03:07:59PM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > For the record: We agreed on IRC that rather than changing the assert, > > it's better to go back to the original code, i.e. do the check/EPERM > > thing again. It is actually possible that the number of UIDs changes in > > the middle of things... > > > > (Yes Frederik, I agree that this is not ideal either :-) But fixing this > > properly is non-trivial, and out of scope here... Might be useful to > > file a bug on Savannah though so it won't get lost.) > > Ok, I filed a report. Thanks :-) -antrik-
