Re: version control garbage in 2.1.90

Miquel van Smoorenburg (miquels@cistron.nl)
19 Mar 1998 00:46:15 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David Dyck: "2.1.90 headers still break SIGRTMAX (include/asm*/signal.h broken)"
Previous message: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer: "Re: is gcc 2.8 safe to use yet ?"
Maybe in reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "version control garbage in 2.1.90"

In article <199803182240.QAA04285@duracef.shout.net>,
Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> wrote:
>Hi Albert,
>
>> The 2.1.90 patch has many misleading version and author changes:
>> For example, look at this useless chunk in which "davem" becomes
>> the last person to modify the file:
>
>Hey, I figure everyone who contributes as much as "davem" is entitled
>to do mass updates of version strings if they want to!

Yes but Albert posts in the newsgroups (even FreeBSD groups!) the most
so it should be "acalahan" instead of "davem".

Mike.

-- Miquel van Smoorenburg | miquels@cistron.nl | Luck is when preparation meets opportunity

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

Next message: David Dyck: "2.1.90 headers still break SIGRTMAX (include/asm*/signal.h broken)"
Previous message: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer: "Re: is gcc 2.8 safe to use yet ?"
Maybe in reply to: Albert D. Cahalan: "version control garbage in 2.1.90"