Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/27/2009 03:21 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> you and Paolo are pretty much the only
>> people who feel that it should have been backed out
>
> Uh? I said that the repository should have been made readonly if there
> was a concrete possibility of backing out the patch, be it with svn cp
> (which we already did a couple of times that trunk disappeared ;-) and
> svn blame works great) or by manual editing.
Well, if you say that's what you meant then that is what you meant and I
must have read more into your post than you intended, but I didn't see any of
those caveats in it(*) so I think my confusion is understandable!
cheers,
DaveK
--
(*) - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-11/msg00725.html
