[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] (no subject)

From: Tom Lord
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] (no subject)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:31:21 -0800 (PST)

In-reply-to: <address@hidden> (message from Robert Collins
        on Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:16:57 +1100)
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] please merge from
References:  <address@hidden>

    > Subject: please merge

No can do, pardner.  You're branch commits the moral sin of BREAKING

    > From: Robert Collins <address@hidden>

    > This has a few goodies:

    > full vim swap file support.
    > safe performance enhancements on changes/commit.
    > changes --link
    > sha1 support.

"safe performance enhancements on changes/commit" is a nice theory but
turns out to be false.  Hopefully it's only false in a trivial way.  I
know I didn't spot anything when I reviewed the code by eye.

Here's what I know so far:

I've merged you up to your patch-55.  That's fine.

Your patches 55-59 merge in some changes from Aaron Bentley and make
some code formatting tweaks to them:

      merge address@hidden/tlasrc--local--1.2--patch-9
      formatting fixes for address@hidden/tlasrc--local--1.2--patch-9
      merge in address@hidden/tlasrc--local--1.2--patch-10
      style fix for address@hidden/tlasrc--local--1.2--patch-10
      merge address@hidden/tlasrc--local--1.2--patch-11 (including adjustments 
for conflicts)

Somewhere in there, mkpatch breaks.   I haven't tracked down where yet
-- I only know that the burn-in test fails when patch complains about 
getting nothing but garbage on input.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]