>If that's the case, then why not change it back until you're
>able to fix it the way you think it needs to be fixed?

I'll guess an answer for you:

Because the idea of how the code is implemented in clear fashion needs the code to work in a simple way that is not messy. Now, Zulg changed something that didn't work in a very user-friendly fashion. Apparently, he needed to restrict the main hand for weapon in order to keep it together. 'Change it back' isn't going to help anything. The development is supposed to go forward, not backwards. I'd prefer Zulg taking these issues into account if and when it is possible when the code is ready for it.

In
>general (or this may just be my opinion), everyone got along
>with how the whole dual wield thing worked before.

I never liked it. It was a phucking mess. Everyone got along with it because they had to. I hope that Zulg can manage something more user-friendly and logical out of it.

It sounds
>like it will take quite a bit of time to get around to, so
>hopefully the thought of reverting it to the way it was (the
>broken way?) isn't out of the question either.

Why make something that is broken? The reduced options for a while is not that big a deal. It appears that Zulg has been working on it at quite diligently. I think that Zulg shouldn't waste his time making a temporary solution to accomodate to your needs.