Re: bitkeeper comments

[Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 10:07, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:15:30AM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > This just got into BitKeeper, about 10 hours ago:
> > 
> > > [PATCH] x86-64 update
> > >
> > > Make everything compile and boot again.
> > >
> > > The earlier third party ioport.c changes unfortunately
> > > didn't even compile, fix that too.
> > >
> > > - Update defconfig
> > > - Some minor cleanup
> > > - Introduce physid_t for APIC masks (fixes UP kernels)
> > > - Finish ioport.c merge and fix compilation
> > 
> > Several days ago, I mailed Andi Kleen a build log which
> > showed that ioport.c builds perfectly well on x86-64.
> > The whole 2.6.0-test4 kernel does in fact, as downloaded
> > from kernel.org. Andi Kleen agreed...
> > 
> > ...and now this comment gets submitted to Linus, ending
> > up in BitKeeper. I'd like this changed. I realize that
> > it may be a rather difficult thing to change at this point,
> > but it is clearly wrong.
> 
> If you want the comments changed I can do that on bkbits.net and anyone
> who grabs the update from there will get the new comments.  If you want
> the patch gone out of BK anyone can do that with a cset -x.

The code itself is OK I guess; the physid_t changes
may well be important, although they could be redone.

It's the comment that bugs me, specifically:

"Make everything compile and boot again."
"The earlier third party ioport.c changes unfortunately
didn't even compile, fix that too."
"Finish ioport.c merge and fix compilation"

(BTW, there's a bit more beyond the end of what I quoted)

I'm OK with whatever ensures that somebody looking back
through the BitKeeper logs isn't going to come to the
conclusion that I broke something.

Um, not everybody will grab updates from bkbits.net,
right? Pardon me for being clueless about BitKeeper,
but is there some command Andi or Linus could run?