Mark J. Nelson wrote:
> Elaine Ashton wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Rafael Vanoni wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe it would be okay with us (the powertop team) to simply
>>> re-create the repository, if the problem is root caused and you feel
&g
Mark J. Nelson wrote:
>
>>> If the zfs snapshot is just the repo in question, that's fine,
>>> otherwise a tarball would be great. The 30-day rollback would be
>>> insufficient, as the problem was actually introduced when merging the
>>> project gate to onnv_82.
>
>> If it's is only the power
Vladimir Kotal wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Based on feedback from Dan Price, I've changed webrev.sh a bit to make
> it more pleasant to work with (in terms of webrev upload) and to fix 2
> small bugs.
>
> webrev is here:
>http://cr.opensolaris.org/~vkotal/webrev-better_upload.onnv/
>
>
> v.
Apo
James Carlson wrote:
> Rafael Vanoni writes:
>> Not exactly a problem, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
>>
>> I just noticed that if you run webrev twice over the same repo, but
>> between the first and the second webrev you change a file back to its
>> o
Not exactly a problem, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
I just noticed that if you run webrev twice over the same repo, but
between the first and the second webrev you change a file back to its
original state (by hand or with hg revert file), the diffs/patches for
that file are not remove
James Carlson wrote:
> Rafael Vanoni writes:
>> The repo I'm running this on has no active list (hg status -m is empty).
>> But that should be okay since hg runs the checks against the parent, and
>> not the changed files - right?
>
> No. hg runs the checks *on
Hi folks
Updated my SUNWonbld package this morning and got this error when
running 'hg pbchk'. Same thing whether I 'ws clone' before or not.
The repo I'm running this on has no active list (hg status -m is empty).
But that should be okay since hg runs the checks against the parent, and
not th
