On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> I am leaning towards (2) for now because it minimizes the modifications
> and risk. The attached patch implements that option.
Your patch is simple enough that I do not find it offensive :-) My
only suggestion is to add more comments, in particular about
protecting "backwards" clocks, and maybe a note that it is okay for
timestamp to be zero.
(1) still sounds like a good idea, although we might find some
problems with it after implementation.
DW
Received on Thu Jul 26 2007 - 10:30:39 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wed Aug 01 2007 - 12:00:06 MDT