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
Quoting Michael Matz :
Yes, it's probably not going to happen; neither the requested revert.
But now I at least know a strategy how to sneak in controversial patches.
I don't think the patch was controversial in the changes it made to the
code per se, only in the side effects that its check in
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
Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>>> PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.
>> However I don't think it's going to happen,
>
> Yes, it's probably not going to happen; neither the requested revert.
> But now I at least know a strategy how to sneak in controversial patches
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
> > PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.
>
> However I don't think it's going to happen,
Yes, it's probably not going to happen; neither the requested revert.
But now I at least know a strategy how to sneak in controversial patches.
> given that it's been a coup
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 18:02 +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
Remove trailing white spaces.
WTF?
Thankyouverymuch.
This 1) wasn't posted or approved 2) is bad as it breaks svn blame
>>
Sorry, I didn¹t mean to cross post my off-topic post to this forum. I meant
it to go to gcc-help only.
Mea culpa,
--Eljay
