The current policy is still one putback per bugid. There have been
other really good reasons to allow more than one (pre-built JCE
binaries), but so far no change in the policy. I still do wish it were
changed, as filing a separate bug just to do a JCE build is wasted work,
IMHO.
> Although
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 20:23 +0800, Max (Weijun) Wang wrote:
> The bug id should have been 6740833.
Aha! The 7 and 4 got swapped. Thanks. And the jcheck scripts would then
have prevented that bug to ever get fixed again. Although I guess you
could reuse the swapped bug number for that one then :)
The bug id should have been 6740833.
Max
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 14:16 -0700, Mark Reinhold wrote:
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:08:38 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Last night there was a changeset introduced to the JSN gate that
contained an
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 14:16 -0700, Mark Reinhold wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:08:38 -0700
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Last night there was a changeset introduced to the JSN gate that
> > contained an incorrect changeset comment. Rather than pollute the
> > changeset history for
> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:08:38 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Last night there was a changeset introduced to the JSN gate that
> contained an incorrect changeset comment. Rather than pollute the
> changeset history for everyone, we're going to rollback this changeset,
> and have the author
Last night there was a changeset introduced to the JSN gate that
contained an incorrect changeset comment. Rather than pollute the
changeset history for everyone, we're going to rollback this changeset,
and have the author redo his changeset and push.
Since this problem was noticed within 1
