shadow_copy3? Or replace 2?

[Christian M Ambach]

Volker wrote on 06/15/2011 01:34:23 PM:

> Attached find a shadow_copy3 module that is supposed to do
> everything shadow_copy2 does. In the last few years, we have
> had to fix various issues with the shadow_copy2 code and
> believe me, this was not the most pleasant excercise. Thus
> I have started from scratch, in particular I've worked
> without all the macros. This makes the code a bit larger,
> but you have a chance to step through it with a debugger.
 
[...]
 
> I really, really want to avoid having to maintain
> shadow_copy2 any further.

You put the following into a commit message a while ago:
"Did I say this module is from hell?"

I think you can blame some grey hairs to this module and
it has given me some headaches as well in the past.

So a clear vote from me to replace shadow_copy2 with the
new implementation.

+1

Cheers,
Christian