>> Fix committed/pushed from master to 9.2. 9.1 declares it as a static
>> function.
>
> Er, is that a good idea to back-patch that? Normally routine specs are
> maintained stable on back-branches, and this is just a cosmetic
> change.
I'm not sure if it's a cosmetic change or not. I thought declaring
to-be-static function as extern is against our coding
standard. Moreover, if someone wants to change near the place in the
source code in the future, changes made to head may not be easily back
patched or cherry-picked to older branches if I do not back patch it.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
