From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 14 21:19:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FAF16A422 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:19:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mail2.fluidhosting.com [204.14.90.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA4B643D4C for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:19:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 3100 invoked by uid 399); 14 Jan 2006 21:19:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Jan 2006 21:19:57 -0000 Message-ID: <43C96AFB.9070400@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:19:55 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060112) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <200601131151.k0DBpDhC039336@repoman.freebsd.org> <43C8692A.9040301@FreeBSD.org> <200601141543.27356.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200601141543.27356.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff , src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/bge if_bge.c src/sys/dev/em if_em.c src/sys/dev/ixgb if_ixgb.c src/sys/dev/nge if_nge.c src/sys/dev/re if_re.c src/sys/dev/txp if_txp.c src/sys/dev/vge if_vge.c src/sys/net if_vlan.c if_vlan_var.h src/sys/net80211 ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:19:59 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > I'm not sure that's quite fair. :) What happened is that his original patch > did work fine (and has been in HEAD for a while), but it changed the API, so > he did a quick fixup to restore the API in RELENG_6 and missed one file > during that subsequent update. I should have been more clear. I wasn't asking if the change had been tested, I followed the thread where it was discussed for HEAD. What I should have asked is, "Did you test the change in RELENG_6 by at minimum building world and kernel before you committed?" Doing so would have caught the missed file, and avoided breakage in a -stable branch. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection