bugzilla-daemon at np.grommit.com wrote:
> http://bugs.grommit.com/show_bug.cgi?id=328
>
>
>
>
>
> ------- Comment #6 from vijay.balakrishna at sun.com 2007-09-04 14:54 PDT
> -------
> Please review changes
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~stevel/vijay_328/
>
>
Hey Vijay,
Couple of comments... partly because my bug filing was probably not the
clearest. :) I think Rich expressed interest in having
BRINGOVER_CLOSED_WS & CLONE_CLOSED_WS be named CLOSED_BRINGOVER_WS and
CLOSED_CLONE_WS instead. I assume this is to make it easier to search
for places where variables affecting BRINGOVER_WS (e.g. searching for
BRINGOVER_WS will pop up matches for both the open & closed variables).
Before you push, can you do a 'hg recommit -f' and put your changeset
comment in the format:
328 nightly should support BRINGOVER_CLOSED_WS, and steve is wrong
(e.g. the ON format of bugid + synopsis)
Just so we have a uniform changeset format? recommit -f will also
squash your outgoing changesets into one changeset if you have multiple
changesets (which will be likely). It's effectively akin to 'wx redelget'.
Everything else looks fine to me. Rich? Any comments?
cheers,
steve
--
stephen lau // stevel at sun.com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
opensolaris // solaris kernel development
