On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:43:22AM +0200, serg@stripped wrote:
> 3.23 and 4.0 trees are similar enough for us (me?) to be able
> to adopt your patches easily. And, AFAIK, the code you're to touch
> was not changed at all.
Fine. I will take my try on this, then.
> Sure, sorry for typo.
> > I had expected this info to be kept in the same place as the info
> > which tables are in the union, i.e. it would be passed to myrg_write()
> > as an attribute of the struct MYRG_INFO.
> > Is there any problem with this idea?
> Actually, it is exactly that "consistent" way
> I thought it should be implemented.
Well, I have to ponder some more about what you and Monty said. I hope
when I am done with the basic implementation, the path will lay bare
before me. :-)