On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 02:34:36AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> [..]
> > The change below has been committed to STABLE 7 weeks ago, but did
> > not go into CURRENT because there was some disagreement on the
> Incidently, this is a poster-child example of why fixes are not to go to
> -stable first.  It leads to exactly this sort of lossage.

I guess what you are trying to say is

    "Thank you for taking the time to track down this performance bug
    and having it fixed in -stable so that we can ship 4.5 with the
    fix, and now for looking at the same problem in -current even if
    you don't really use it"

Please, (re)read the commit log and the discussion on -net, I did
not want to step over the toes of the author of the code in -current,
but he did not have such strong objections for having -stable fixed.

This fix has not been lost _only_ because the code was in stable
and it was documented in the commit logs. If I had not committed
it there (and I could not do it on -current for the reasons above),
I would have just forgotten about it.

> How about fixing it for real as described in the commit message?

The real fix, for me, is the one-line change to M_LEADINGSPACE.
The one described in the commit message was just Bosko's point of
view, with which I and many others disagree, and which requires an
extensive scrutiny of the code and a change of the commonly understood
semantics in M_LEADINGSPACE.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to