On Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 22:36, TAKAHASHI Tamotsu wrote: > * Tue Feb 27 2007 TAKIZAWA Takashi <taki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Perhaps the difference is: > > - a bugfix concerning memory allocation > > - "+tamo" part, which is result thing of discussion by Tamotsu and Alain > > - a new patch is safer. > > Thanks for your explanation. > > I (1) reverted the old patch (rev. 3fa665562a95) and > (2) applied your patches and > (3) saved "hg diff" as the attached patch. > > Can you try this out? > Does it have the bug you mentioned above? > If it doesn't, it must be easier for Brendan to apply > than your three conflicting patches. Thank you for fixing up these patches Tamo. I think something might have gone wrong in reverting the original patch in your version, so I redid this myself, but the effort is very much appreciated. Takashi, it would be very nice if you ensured that patches you submitted applied cleanly (together!) before sending them. For the record, to revert the diff: hg diff -r 4793:4792 | patch -p1. There was a minor conflict in UPDATING, easily fixed. hg backout would have done about the same thing. The updated version is now in CVS. Please try it out and make sure I didn't botch the patch.
Attachment:
pgpZNZpig1g0v.pgp
Description: PGP signature