2007/3/11, Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> Ok, it has now been reverted, and attached is the (reverted) patch.
>
> Can you elaborate on what details of it you think are bad and what can be done
> to fix them?

I'm short on time right now. I'll do it later today or tomorrow.

> I think we can (and should) make the change that allows the progress callback
> to be called more frequently in a separate change that I don't think anyone
> would mind or argue much about. No need to combine these two as they're
> somewhat unrelated.

Yes they are unrelated, and I have no problem with allowing the
progress callback being called more frequently.

-- 
-=[Yang]=-