DJ Lucas wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> "What a horrible commit!!" or at least he should have ;-)
>
>> Probably wouldn't hurt to update the ChangeLog with the XFS
>> version increment.
>>
>>
> UGH...that wasn't supposed to go in yet! I'll save the explanation and
> just admit that the simplest solution is often the best. :-)
>
Reverted in r7185 (though it was probably OK).
>> This really needs to be reworded. It says to run the tests,
>> but then it says it is broken and to run them later.
>>
>> Which is it? Now or later? Running it twice just to see if
>> it breaks seems a bit odd.
>>
<Snip>
> I will clean that up in a second and put a
> more accurate verbage and check in place shortly.
>
OK, fixed in r7186. I placed the test commands in screen tags as if
they are required though. I'm not sure we have a good example to follow
anymore. Should they maybe be {note}{para}test
suite...{/para}{screen}commands{/screen}{/note}?
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
