This is finally reverted in rev. 651193
Jacopo
On Apr 14, 2008, at 7:05 AM, David E Jones wrote:
+1 from me on the revert as well (making it clear as it is only
implied in my initial reply).
-David
On Apr 12, 2008, at 11:04 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
No feedback on this?
However, a c
+1 from me on the revert as well (making it clear as it is only
implied in my initial reply).
-David
On Apr 12, 2008, at 11:04 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
No feedback on this?
However, a committer should always be around to explain and provide
further details if there are concerns or qu
Yes, 4 days after this seems pretty reasonnable...
Jacques
From: "Scott Gray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+1
Scott
On 13/04/2008, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No feedback on this?
However, a committer should always be around to explain and provide
further details if there are concer
+1
Scott
On 13/04/2008, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No feedback on this?
> However, a committer should always be around to explain and provide
> further details if there are concerns or questions on his commits.
>
> Should we revert this commit?
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Apr 9, 2008,
No feedback on this?
However, a committer should always be around to explain and provide
further details if there are concerns or questions on his commits.
Should we revert this commit?
Jacopo
On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:29 AM, David E Jones wrote:
Actually, transactions ARE important for reading
Actually, transactions ARE important for reading as well as writing,
and should pretty much always be used.
What was the problem you had that this change is supposed to solve?
-David
On Apr 8, 2008, at 5:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: sichen
Date: Tue Apr 8 16:21:14 2008
New Rev
