On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
*known* broken?
Because I have a patch at hand that works (at least it should be good enough
for the
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
|
| I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
|
| Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
| *known* broken?
I have no idea... it seems all my
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
| |
| | I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
| |
| | Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
| | *known*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
|
| I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
|
| Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
| *known* broken?
I have
>On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
>
>> I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
>
>Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
>*known* broken?
Because I have a patch at hand that works (at least it should be good enough
for
>John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>| On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
>|
>| > I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
>|
>| Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
>| *known* broken?
>
>I have no idea... it seems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| >John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| >| On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
| >|
| >| > I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
| >|
| >| Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
| >|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
|
| > I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases
|
| Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's
| *known* broken?
I