On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, June 3, 2004 7:17 AM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The damned locking API can't work portably as things stand today. It > > wasn't designed to be portable, and it was never tested in a portable > > manner. I posted a possible solution for this, but got no feedback at all > > on my idea. I don't have the time to work on this right now, but it is a > > showstopper, and I am -1 on releasing with this issue in the code. > > Just to be clear: you can't veto a release. > > +1 for taking whatever the heck is in HEAD, say, in 2 weeks and calling it > 1.0. This is *so* way overdue. If people haven't fixed it by now, it won't > get fixed anytime soon. -- justin Dude, the API _can't_ work. This isn't a matter of being able to slap a fix on it. The locking API isn't portable, and until it is changed in some way, can't be made portable. So, either we rip out the whole locking API as unusable in a portable application or we fix it, but saying that we are releasing a portable library with an API that we _know_ for a fact to be non-portable is complete BS. Ryan
