gnash-commit
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-commit] [SCM] Gnash branch, master, updated. 950824ee29ccaad6


From: Rob Savoye
Subject: Re: [Gnash-commit] [SCM] Gnash branch, master, updated. 950824ee29ccaad6bfe9d3993c4303a2308a7080
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:17:48 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6

On 12/09/10 10:47, Sandro Santilli wrote:

> The revert is due to misleading commit message: - revno.h was only

  That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. If we reverted
commits for bad messages, many would never make it in, including many of
yours. :-)

> rebuilt if sources changed before this commit, while this commit
> forces removal of it and thus unconditional re-creation - this commit
> moves revno.h from source tree to build tree w/out saying so in the
> commit log

  Your revert breaks NFS mounted builds. You're saying you reverted my
commit because I didn't say I was moving revno.h back to the build tree
where it's always been ? That was in the long email anyway. If this is
your excuse, your ego has gotten out of control. Breaking builds just
cause you don't use NFS is stupid. Get this through your head, *you*
broke my entire build farm's ability to work properly. Generated files
should never go in the source tree, ever after autogen.sh is done.

> Additionally (but would normally not trigger a revert) - the date
> default is useless as revno.h should always be in packages obtained
> w/out git and you can always generate if you got the sources using
> git.

  If you look through our repository, you'll see quite a few deb
packages with a date, instead of a revno due to various issues with the
build slave. If it turns out the date default isn't needed anymore, it
can be removed when it's proven to be safe. You only build on one or two
machines, you have no clue about the problems that can happen in the
real world.

> NOTE: I wouldn't revert commits if they weren't themselves reverts of
> mine in the first place. Please discuss changes on the development
> mailing list to avoid commit wars...

  Strk, I wrote have been maintaining that Makefile target for quite a
while, I think I know how it should work. I told you in my email what I
was doing in detail, and you still reverted it. You're so pissed off, I
doubt you even read my email...

        - rob -



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]