On May 5, 2007, at 6:46 AM, Oliver Gould wrote:

> On May 3, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Oliver Gould wrote:
>> Is it safe to assume that thorpej-atomic has been merged with - 
>> current
>> recently enough for newlock2 to be present?
>
> I definitely asked this question backwards (s/merg/branch/).
>
> dillo answered my real question:
>
> On 2007-05-03 20:29 -0500, Dieter Baron wrote:
>>  thorpej-atomic has not been merged yet, but was branched after
>> newlock2 was merged.  So the thorpej-atomic branch has newlock2.
>
> Is there any reason not to use thorpej-atomic for development?

None of the code there has been anything other than compiled-tested  
yet.  There is still a fair amount of work to do.  My family just got  
a little bigger, so my evenings are less available for working on  
thorpej-atomic than they were a couple of weeks ago, but I'll try to  
make some time for it soon.

-- thorpej