The interesting fact about those monkey patches is that the one who writes it will easily use it with confidence, while those that have to adopt it are more than weary and suspicious to have it included in any module/library that is loaded...
Now being pragmatic, I am only interested in the consequences of adopting a solution like this, and as I understand it those are:
* this patching of display.newGroup() overwrites the global reference to the original Corona function, it wedges itself in between and all your libraries/modules will use it whether you like it or not (just a clarification to any readers that didn't catch on to that yet)
* this global display.newGroup() patch must be included in the main.lua file before any other module is loaded to be effective and predictable (this will circumvent that competing localizing scenario that I described).
* God or any other higher coding-authority forbid that there is any other module loaded that was written by someone who had the great idea of also patching that same global display.newGroup() - all bets are off what would happen then... (although it could lead to some interesting bugs...;-)
* Ansca should step up to make this issue go away - the idea that many of us would start to rely on this monkey-patching of their core library routines to sidestep memory-leak issues, should make them shiver as it makes future changes/fixes more complicated - Ansca are you reading this? Please engage in these discussions...