On 1/7/2010 6:06 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 16:26 +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> This sounds like a valid point. > > +1 > >> I would propose to revert r817810 / r817809 (for 1.3.x / 1.4.x) and >> only keep r817806 (trunk). Graham? >> IMHO we can backport this again later if the problem is sorted out in >> trunk. > > I think we should revert this even in trunk for now, because it > completely changes how hashes work. A hash allocated from a pool must > keep things in valid memory until all cleanups finish running for that > pool.
+1... it will make porters lives a pain moving to 2.0, and possibly lead them down the wrong path in developing against 2.0 but deploying against a stable 1.x release.
