Stephen Lau wrote: > Frank's putback comments for the most recent changeset were incorrect: >> putback missed part of the comments piped to it, should really have >> been: >> >> 6462361 Cannot make hardlinks to device nodes on lofs >> Contributed by Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> 5105488 ufs_dirremove() should not panic in face of NULL name passed in >> Contributed by John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> --- >> frankB > > I've rolled back that changeset and recommitted the new one. You'll > want to rollback and pull this new changeset. > > cheers, > steve
I think, although I'm not 100% certain, that rollbacks can be painful and are easy to miss, requiring coordination from everyone who has taken a clone. Can I strongly request/suggest that in cases like this, we make a 2nd commit (perhaps creating a "forward undo" followed by the redo)? I understood where there was a legal consideration to limit exposure of closed sources, but that doesn't seem the case here. I would argue that rollback should be treated as a tool to be used only as a last resort. Thanks. -- Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division, General Dynamics C4 Systems http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
