On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> That being said, I could implement this as a custom clock subclass, which >> would probably be cleaner that what I have done. > > Shall I wait for that one or do you want this patch to be included? > I don't mind, your call here... > Let's go ahead with this patch. I do not have too much experience with the clock stuff, so I imagine that will probably take some back and forth. Thanks!
