It appears the goal here is to be accurate regarding minor amusing documentation details. That's good, the same detailing will reflects in code as well.
Well, then don't send a diff alone. Provide all the proof. History is complicated and full of gaps. By providing the full proof, the maximum number of reviewers can argue over the gappy data and come to a shared conclusion. Do supply the original diff though -- if everyone agrees, it will be agreed upon that the original judgement was correct, avoiding a fuss. > Hi Sevan, > > Sevan Janiyan Solaris wrote on Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:32:54PM +0100: > > On 16/08/2016 20:03, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > >> Not (yet?) committed. Can you explain why you think that it > >> appeared in version 1? > > > Appologies Ingo, I made a mistake here, I was using the snippet of code > > set to v1 boiler plate, got distracted halfway through making the change > > & skipped changing the v1 to v5 & moved on. > > No problem, errors happen, i also sent some buggy HISTORY patches in the > past. That's why we usually make sure two people have looked at a patch > before committing it. > > >> I don't see it here: > >> http://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V1/man/man1 > >> I don't even see it in v2, v3, or v4. > >> The earliest instance is can find is in v5: > >> http://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V5/usr/source/s1/dd.c > > > You're right, it should be v5, not v1. > > Thanks for confirming, committed now. > Ingo >
