Mark Mitchell wrote:
I agree in principle -- much better the bugs we know than the ones we don't. But, IIUC, the patch we'd be reverting is from March, 2006, which means that there's potentially a lot more that depends on it. In that sense, I don't even feel confident that reverting the change is a conservative move, likely to lead to less optimal code, but not wrong code. Are you? (That's a serious question; not a rhetorical one.)
That's a fair question; I don't know anything about the patch or the bug it was intended to fix. Richard would know better.
Jason
