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? -- ams ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
