Stephen Lau wrote: > As Shawn noticed... the open-sourcing of the e1000g driver yesterday > contained proprietary source code headers in the diff. This was a > mistake by the engineer moving the code, and needs to be re-bridged. > We can't have proprietary source code headers in public open source > code, no matter how minor and trivial the code is. > > I've re-bridged the putback in onnv/onnv-gate, which means you will > need to roll your repositories back to revision 3567:6d1c4dd92b63, or > else your repositories will grow a new head. > > Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. > cheers, > steve
Events like this are confusing to me. Please bear with me. Maybe I'm just naive in my dealings with Hg, but is the need for this kind of special attention a result of Hg itself, an artifact of the current Hg bridge, or the result of rolling back a repository instead of just "patching forward" (i.e. not treating the backout as 2nd update, but instead actually "undoing" the original commit?) I'm not sure this is the same kind of Hg snafu in the past, but the upshot is that I'm not sure whether I should be using Hg at this time, or should I be sticking with SVN? (I don't work on my ON clone every day; the last couple of times this happened I just deleted my old workspace and started with a fresh one.) Again, I apologize if I sound confused -- but I am. I'd like to hear some "official" word on what those of us on the outside _should_ be using as the most up-to-date source for Solaris. Thanks! -- Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division, General Dynamics C4 Systems http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
