Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:22:03 +0200 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable-7@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r183819 - in stable/7/sys: . compat/linprocfs fs/procfs Message-ID: <20081013142203.GA99640@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86od1oziig.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <200810131300.m9DD0MaR076808@svn.freebsd.org> <20081013131047.GA84887@freebsd.org> <86skr0zlav.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20081013133140.GQ7782@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <86od1oziig.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> writes: > > Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > > Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > > what about commiting this to note this change? > > > > + <para>A serious problem emulating /proc for Linux was fixed. Many Linux > > > > + ports are now working including the linux-flashplugin9 port.</para> > > > "A serious problem was fixed"? Really? And if none of that software > > > worked before this commit, how come they were already in ports? > > I do not think that mentioning of this should appear in release notes, > > but Roman is mostly right in stating the fact. > > Pretend you don't really know the details of the change, and reread > Roman's proposed relnotes entry. Do you think it gives a correct > impression of the nature and severity of the issue? my intention was to advertise that flash9 works ok now. Which is a thing a lot of people care about. Feel free to submit your own wording.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081013142203.GA99640>