Re: revivesa status 2008/07/09

[Dieter Baron <dillo%KD119105101110.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp@localhost>]

In article <20080725.144608.133024208.he%uninett.no@localhost> Havard wrote:
: > Bringing SA back invents more than 3000 lines of very
: > complicated code.  Why?
: >
: > - To support specific backwards compatibility which we never actually
: >   supported (see what Andrew and Jason wrote).

: It's my opinion that such a statement is attempting to rewrite
: history.

: If my memory isn't failing me, it was only after the introduction
: of 1:1 threading that it was deemed required to modify the
: backward compatibility rule.  This is a considerable change from
: the way we have operated in the past, and, unsurprisingly by now,
: one that I'm not entirely happy with.  Therefore, for that reason
: alone, I support getting the revivesa into the tree.

  What Havard said.

                                        yours,
                                        dillo