Jeremy Hall wrote: > Hi, > > In the new year, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??? huh? >>On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 C.Y.M wrote: >>>Johannes Stezenbach wrote: >>>>just to let you know that this report and fix is highly appreciated, >>>>but I simply am short of time and didn't have time to look into >>>>the details to verify your fix. It won't drop off my TODO-list. >>>> >>>>Would be cool if someone else had the time... >>> >>>Did anyone decide if this patch should be commited? >> >>I was away for a while and didn't have time yet to look into this. >> >>I'm also somewhat disappointed that no one else wants >>to look into this :-( > > oh I looked into it, and I reported back that it was GREAT! > > I was wondering why it didn't get committed. I have tried this patch also, and all I can report is that it didnt break anything, nor did it cause any improvements that I can visibly detect. Looking at the patch by eye seems to make sense, but I didnt have the time to look any deeper into it. Jeremy, can you share your experience with us in a little more detail , most specifically, tell us why you think this is 'GREAT' ? Such a comment makes me think that you noticed a world of difference after applying it... A little elaboration might be all we need to decide on applying this. IMHO, this is probably okay to commit to cvs. -- Michael Krufky
