John Levon wrote:
I mean that if you can't fix the bug you shouldn't label the fix a bad
idea.
But it is a bad idea in my opinion (the fix in general I mean not the
particular code lines), anyway I just want to have the lines there so
that I don't have to download an earlier version to see how t
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 02:43:06PM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> BTW.: Why do I need to send a patch for a patch? Do we have new rules?
I mean that if you can't fix the bug you shouldn't label the fix a bad
idea.
I've no real problem with including #if 0 stuff, even if it's pointless
as it will
John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:58:08AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
Well I don't think this patch is a good idea and if we insert it that
way I at least want a #warning there and I would like to have the old
code there #if 0 out as the existing code should be the right on and the
n
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:58:08AM +0100, Juergen Vigna wrote:
> Well I don't think this patch is a good idea and if we insert it that
> way I at least want a #warning there and I would like to have the old
> code there #if 0 out as the existing code should be the right on and the
> new code is a
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:26:02AM +, John Levon wrote:
This works OK for me. Note it fixes only one mode of failure - several
other cases are still broken. But those are not regressions, this is.
OK ?
Looks ok.
Well I don't think this patch is a good idea and if w
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:26:02AM +, John Levon wrote:
> This works OK for me. Note it fixes only one mode of failure - several
> other cases are still broken. But those are not regressions, this is.
>
> OK ?
Looks ok.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Securit
