Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:49:07 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-standards@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong Message-ID: <20010602124907.G31257@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 03:33:03PM -0400 References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200106020823.f528N5O98998@earth.backplane.com> <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <p05100e0fb73ee9d458f7@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 03:33:03PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > I don't have any strong feeling about what is "right" in this > case, but I do think it would be appropriate to back out the > change to time_t until the question *is* correctly sorted out. I don't see why? We can't even agree there is a problem. And if dangous kernel commits can stay in, so can this one. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010602124907.G31257>