Stephen Lau wrote: > 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?
Oh.. and if you make the change to change the variable name, could you update the env files to either take them out (which I think was Rich's suggestion), or change the variable name to match? cheers, steve -- stephen lau // stevel at opensolaris.org | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development
