From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6328 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2002 10:36:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6217 invoked by uid 71); 29 Oct 2002 10:36:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 02:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021029103605.6208.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: bosch@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: ada/6558: [mainline regression] Wrongly reverted patches Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01204.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR ada/6558; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Nathanael Nerode , , , Subject: Re: ada/6558: [mainline regression] Wrongly reverted patches Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:27:44 +0000 (GMT) On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote: > My understanding is that the only patches at issue were those lost > when this change occurred: > > 2002-03-07 Geert Bosch Yes. It's all patches from non-ACT people to the FSF tree before then that need to be checked to make sure they are still in the tree or have been superseded by subsequent changes. I think someone found an example (which may or may not now have been unreverted individually) that wasn't among the examples I gave of patches wrongly reverted by this change, so it is necessary to do that check rather than relying on my list. > I would like to point out that it is just shy of eight months since > this happened, and there has been no indication that Mr. Bosch has > lifted a finger to address the problem that he created (beyond > claiming that it would be fixed soon). -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk