On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Eric Covener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe this is now correct w/ r696366 if you want to doublecheck.

Jim, I think you re-broke it with your last two CHANGES updates.  You
left it with  two "PR 45445" and no "initial-not-pooled" (and latter
is committed)

-- 
Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to