Tom, all,
* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> This needs more cleanup, testing, and comments explaining why we're
> doing this (and then perhaps comments, somewhere.. in the backend ACL
> code that explains that the ordering needs to be preserved), but the
> basic idea seems sound to me and the case you presented does work with
> this patch (for me, at least) whereas what's in master didn't.
Alright, here's an updated patch which cleans things up a bit and adds
comments to explain what's going on. I also updated the comments in
acl.h to explain that ordering actually does matter.
I've tried a bit to break the ordering in the backend a bit but there
could probably be more effort put into that, if I'm being honest.
Still, this definitely fixes the case which was being complained about
and therefore is a step in the right direction.
It's a bit late here, so I'll push this in the morning and watch the
buildfarm.
Thanks!
Stephen
