Garrett D'Amore wrote:
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.
My plan was that once ON moves, these sorts of things would be done via
'hg backout' and then a follow-on commit.
However, we're still in "beta" - so I'd like for the hg/onnv/onnv-gate
to mirrour the /ws/onnv-gate as much as possible...
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
