From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8159 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2009 14:32:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 8151 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2009 14:32:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f227.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f227.google.com) (209.85.219.227) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:31:56 +0000 Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so1966670ewy.16 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.103.83 with SMTP id j19mr943512ebo.31.1259332312554; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:31:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm2796786eyz.31.2009.11.27.06.31.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:31:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B0FE68F.2030807@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:32:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Bonzini CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: doh? References: <1259318103.9961.17.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <4B0FDAA2.1030005@gmail.com> <4B0FE064.10204@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00778.txt.bz2 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 11/27/2009 03:21 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >> you and Paolo are pretty much the only >> people who feel that it should have been backed out > > Uh? I said that the repository should have been made readonly if there > was a concrete possibility of backing out the patch, be it with svn cp > (which we already did a couple of times that trunk disappeared ;-) and > svn blame works great) or by manual editing. Well, if you say that's what you meant then that is what you meant and I must have read more into your post than you intended, but I didn't see any of those caveats in it(*) so I think my confusion is understandable! cheers, DaveK -- (*) - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-11/msg00725.html