Ah. Info. Thanks! Yes- of course it needs to be addresse.


On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Michael K. Sanders wrote:

> Matthew Jacob writes:
> >Well- if the people reporting problems can't send mail saying what they are, I
> >can't fix the issue. I'm a little ticked that all I get was mail from Frank
> >saying "it broke things" with zero details. Was there mail from someone other
> >than Frank? ICB does *not* count as information. I searched a couple of the
> >mail lists but saw nothing.
> 
> Relax, don't take it personally.  There was mail, you just missed it.  
> 
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2001/09/20/0001.html
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2001/09/20/0007.html
> 
> And here's the mentioned PR:
> 
> http://www.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=14013
> 
> >Like I said, I'll do some more testing, but w/o supporting details and knowing
> >what this does, I'm inclined to think this is not the actual issue. Since the
> >problems it solves were agreed upon by Manuel and Jason and I, I'm inclined to
> >think that the change is reasonable.
> 
> The change may be reasonable, but if it's causing hangs on i386, that needs
> to be addressed, no?
> 
> :: Mike ::
> 
>