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?
-- ams