From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28804 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2004 01:56:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28768 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 01:56:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc12.comcast.net) (204.127.202.56) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 01:56:24 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004081201562401200pm5c6e>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:56:24 +0000 Message-ID: <411ACE32.40605@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:03:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Ronne CC: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: time.g weirdness References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00876.txt.bz2 Hans Ronne wrote: >>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote: > Well, the problem in that case was actually the opposite: it was impossible > to move into the unknown because the early version of Peter's pathfinder > always returned false. Oh, right. I did flip things around. >I think the problems we see now are due to > subsequent changes in the command pre-flight code which were in prompted by > and in part depended on Peter's code. Some of these changes were kept when > the pathfinding was removed. > > I have just checked out the November 12 sources. My intention is to try to > restore command processing as closely as possible to how it worked back > then. With no path-finding algorithm, some of these pre-flight checks make > little sense. Well, just for the record, removing the pathfinding code was not an easy exercise once things had started to become entangled as they had. However, it was not a blind one either; the code surgery would have been completed much sooner than it was, if I hadn't given each reverse patch a fair amount of consideration and determined what needed to be cut out of the reverse patch (in order to keep it in the code repository). It is certainly possible that with so many different little pieces of code being touched over a period spanning half a year, and with the application of an occasional patch hunk failing (and thus needing further editing), that something slipped through the cracks. It could also be that I misjudged how a piece of machinery would behave after the alteration. I did try to pay attention to such things, but, like I said, it was not an easy task by any means. I also think that, when I completed the operation, I admonished ourselves to be on the lookout for breakage, knowing that it would almost certainly be found. Eric