On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:22:08 +0800
Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 21/2/18 7:14 pm, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > +1. But have one suggestion for format.
> > Something like
> >
> > Broken by: rXXX
> > Broken by: Unknown (Bugfix but the revision introduced it is unknown)
> >
> > and opti
On 21/2/18 7:14 pm, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
Hi.
+1. But have one suggestion for format.
Something like
Broken by: rXXX
Broken by: Unknown (Bugfix but the revision introduced it is unknown)
and optionally
Broken by: No (To emphasize it's NOT a bugfix.)
I think that is probably too much
Hi.
+1. But have one suggestion for format.
Something like
Broken by: rXXX
Broken by: Unknown (Bugfix but the revision introduced it is unknown)
and optionally
Broken by: No (To emphasize it's NOT a bugfix.)
would be better for scripts already handling "MFC after: " or
"X-MFC-With: " et
Hi, I have a very small request to those committing into head.
If you commit a fix, then if it is possible to easily do so, can you
give the revision number in which the regression was introduced?
like "this was broken in r329xxx"
this allows people who are looking for specific problems to
