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

Reply via email to