email@example.com wrote on 11/14/2005 01:25:24 PM:
> On 11/14/05, Mark Phippard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I applied Patrick's patch to the 1.3.x branch on Windows and built it.
> > passed all of the JUnit tests. I then put the code into Subclipse and
> > added reentry code. Namely, I removed all internal caching of calls
> > getAdminDirectory() and isAdminDirectory(). I also put the cancel
> > operation code back in. With Patrick's patch everything appears to
> > properly now. Having support for cancel has been one of the top
> > for Subclipse so it would be good to be able to add this feature.
> Oh, I have no question that this is an improvement, I just want to
> verify that there aren't other demons lurking out in the darkness
> waiting to eat us alive at some point in the future.
I guess from my point of view, my concern is that I would like to see this
patch applied to 1.3.x so that it can be picked up in the next release
candidate and we can have a better 1.3.x release of Subclipse.
I am not a C programmer but it doesn't seem to me that Patrick's change
have introduced any new problems. The problems that you are concerned
about would exist in the existing code as well. (wouldn't they?) So
while I think it is good that you have potentially identified a problem
scenario and are looking for an approach that will fix it, I would still
like to see Patrick's patch applied to the branch.
That being said, it was dlr that vetoed the patch so it could be that I am
making an incorrect assumption in linking it to your email. I am still
waiting to hear what dlr's reason was for the veto.
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Nov 14 19:36:46 2005