On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 05:55:38PM +0400, Sergey Vlasov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 02:14:57PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > > On 16 September 2010 13:50, Sergey Vlasov <v...@altlinux.ru> wrote: > > > Removing the offending line fixes the problem. > > > > Thanks. I had to copy and paste what looked like your Changelog > > entry. Annoyingly. Please read up on how we accept patches here. > > Oops. (Some other projects prefer Changelog separate from the patch - > most likely to avoid rejects when someone else had also added a > Changelog entry.)
Not here. We prefer them together. > Yes, there is a bug - the patch was applied at the wrong place (I > wonder how that could happen, there are different number of leading > tabs in those places). > > Here is the fixup patch, if you will not decide to revert the whole > thing (with -U10, so that at least one different context line would be > visible - yes, that much code is duplicated there): For crying out loud. I've pushed this for now -- when I get home, this entire function gets my own special treatment of refactoring. This shouldn't take two bloody patches to get right. Watch this space. -- Thomas Adam
