On 5/15/12 5:21 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 17:10, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
You have not yet given me a single
reason why we should put back something that's flawed. All
you've said is: i rely on X and I want it back.
Well, the old scheme was broken and there are several good
reasons why we moved to a more consistent approach.
I agree Manik, the new locking scheme has been a major improvement,
it makes no sense to spend effort to re-base it on 5.2 ... it's only
that a certain point we misunderstood (or if you want, hoping) that
it was still available somewhere using some mysterious configuration
flag :-)