[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
>> * Much more detailed and inherently correct information can be gotten from
>>
>> git log -- libguile/
>>
>> git log -- test-suite/
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> * The ChangeLog duplicates the git log information if done correctly. Hence
>> it requires double work for the
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reasons:
>
> * Much more detailed and inherently correct information can be gotten from
>
> git log -- libguile/
>
> git log -- test-suite/
>
> etc.
>
> * The ChangeLog duplicates the git log information if done correctly. Hence
> it
Reasons:
* Much more detailed and inherently correct information can be gotten from
git log -- libguile/
git log -- test-suite/
etc.
* The ChangeLog duplicates the git log information if done correctly. Hence
it requires double work for the committer.
* Since updates to the ChangeLog
Hello,
Thanks for the nice summary!
Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But what if it goes like this:
>
> S becomes collectable in theory
>
> mark phase: S is indeed marked as collectable
>
> C is returned from a callback: get_ptr() return S
>
> at some later time the card containi
Han-Wen Nienhuys escreveu:
>>> The use of scm_gc_mark() outside of GC is fundamentally broken, since it
>>> creates race conditions in the presence of threads.
>> I was not aware that this was the case.
>>
>> My impression was that the mark phase is global; it requires all threads
>> that were in
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
>> I'm still in favor of "git revert" since the log message makes it clear
>> which patch was reverted and why. "We" can then take our time and work
>> out a proper fix, and finally re-merge the patch plus its fix.
>> Furth
