From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 8 17:34:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00422 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:34:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00343 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:34:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA03460; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:33:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: ben@rosengart.com cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is tickadj still required in -CURRENT ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Oct 1998 20:26:20 EDT." Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 17:33:55 -0700 Message-ID: <3456.907893235@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > So when is someone going to look at the reproducible, fully documented, > weeks-old filesystem bug I posted to this list two days ago? Would a > send-pr help? Of course a send-pr would help. Posting a problem to the list is like saying "if someone has time right this second to look at this, please do so, otherwise just ignore it" since once a message is in the archives, it's effectively gone from people's sight. Some folks might also claim this effect is the same for PRs, but I've seen a lot more PRs, of varying ages, revived and dealt with than I ever have seen with postings. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message