Just for sake of completeness, I've tried out the patch and didn't see
anything
weird. We have yet to roll that perl out into production, but will do so
soon.
-Eric
Jordan Henderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'Dan Sugalski'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordan
s.dla.mil> Henderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Craig A. Berry"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
02/23/00 02:37 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Eric Johnson/FactSet)
Subject: RE: leaking channels
(was RE:
Patches for 5.5.650 to build?)
Absolutely. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't looking into an area covered
by a
recent patch.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 2:24 PM
> To: Jordan Henderson; Craig A. Berry; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: leaking channels (was RE: Patches for 5.5.650 to build?)
>
>
> At 02:13 PM 2/23/00 -0500, Jordan Henderson wrote:
> >OK, that's unrelated to mbx channels.
>
> And it definitely fixes a truly nasty bug, which isn't a bad thing.
>
> Dan
>
> --------------------------------------"it's like
> this"-------------------
> Dan Sugalski even samurai
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
> teddy bears get drunk
>
- RE: leaking channels (was RE: Patches for 5.5.650 to buil... Jordan Henderson
- RE: leaking channels (was RE: Patches for 5.5.650 to... Dan Sugalski
- RE: leaking channels (was RE: Patches for 5.5.650 to... Jordan Henderson
- RE: leaking channels (was RE: Patches for 5.5.650 to... ejohnson
- RE: leaking channels (was RE: Patches for 5.5.65... Craig A. Berry
