From owner-freebsd-commit  Tue Sep 19 04:24:37 1995
Return-Path: owner-commit
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id EAA27011
          for freebsd-commit-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:24:37 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id EAA26999
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:24:35 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id EAA26986
          for cvs-etc-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:24:33 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA26981
          ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:24:29 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA11213; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:24:20 -0700
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: paul@freebsd.org, CVS-commiters@freebsd.org, cvs-etc@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc sysconfig 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:12:35 PDT."
             <199509191112.EAA01836@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:24:18 -0700
Message-ID: <11199.811509858@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-commit@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> Umm, can you back out ALL the changes?  I see that you already
> commited this one, now we have 6 (counting both branches) commits to
> this file in the past 12 hours or so, and we haven't even agreed what
> to do with it! :<

Woog.  This is getting a bit crazy.  Can we have maybe just a little
discussion before we do *anything* else?  I have no fundamental
objection to backing these changes out entirely, and will certainly do
so if it looks like that's what's definitely wanted, but I'm loath to
do even a single additional CVS op at this point until we at least
decide "forward or backward".  It would only be layering even more
craziness onto this situation if I backed everything out and then it
was decided to take a route similar to what we have now.  I'd have to
bring it all back in again.

Maybe if I simply remove it from the snapshot?  That would, at least,
prevent anyone from becoming attached to a feature that might go away.
We could leave it in -current for a little longer then, until this
is decided..

Foo.  Why is it that the 3 line changes always seem to generate the most
grief? :-)

					Jordan