Terry Lambert writes:
> Mark Murray wrote:
> > Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer
> > compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the
> > Attic without the "fix".
>
> Only if some idiot breaks
FreeBSD NAT
>
>
> How long can this remain unfixed before the code is diked out,
> and the checksum is recalculated fully, instead?
Terry, you sound rather foolish when you argue like this. This
is semantic tomfoolery and off topic. End of thread.
M
--
Mark Murray
iumop ap!sdn w,I
you guys bitch about it not being fixable.
Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
M
--
Mark Murray
iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
good state to leave the code in the attic.
Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer
compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the
Attic without the "fix".
M
--
Mark Murray
iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PR
Terry Lambert writes:
> Mark Murray wrote:
> > Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
>
> Is "tested" a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it
> stay in the tree?
Both.
> Be careful of your answer, unless you are willing to
