On 9/5/06, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com> wrote:
> At 2006-09-05 16:35:49 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
> >
> > The biggest part of the work needed is to write the documentation ---
> > but we'd have to do that for Abhijit's patch too, since the userlocks
> > docs presumably fall under GPL along with the code.
>
> I'll write the documentation, either for the code as it is, or for any
> replacement we decide to use.
>
> I didn't submit documentation (or a Makefile, uninstall_otherlock.sql,
> etc.) only because I didn't know if anything was going to be done with
> otherlock now. I just wanted to mention the existence of the code.
>
> > So basically I don't see the point of investing effort in a
> > bug-compatible version of userlocks, when we can have something
> > cleaner and suitable for the long run with not very much more
> > effort.
>
> Fine with me. Two questions:
>
> - Where would the code live, if it were in core?
> - Shall I hack up the API you suggested in your earlier message?
are we still moving forward with this? I would love to see this go in for 8.2.
merlin
