* David O'Brien <email@example.com> [ Date: 2004-03-26 ]
[ w.r.t. Re: cvs commit: src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 boot0ext.s src/sys/boot/i386/boot0ext Makefile ]
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:55:58PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> > >>> Added files:
> > >>> sys/boot/i386/boot0 boot0ext.s
> > >>> sys/boot/i386/boot0ext Makefile
> > >>> Log:
> > >>> Bring back jhb's two sector (1024 bytes) 'boot0' [rev 1.22] as
> > >>>'boot0ext'.
> > >>
> > >>This has a bug that I've fixed in a p4 branch. You could have found that
> > >>out if you had asked me first.
> > >
> > >I plan to commit what you have from p4. But I wanted this to be an
> > >exact copy of rev 1.22, so that if we can agree to go with the 2-sector
> > >boot0 for 6.0, it would be easier to see the changes.
> > >
> > >Please feel free to commit what you have in perforce, since it will be a
> > >little bit until I can.
> > Since you seem to be concerned about preserving history, could bringing
> > this file back have been done as a repo-copy?
> Not as you might expect. I expect for 6.0, that 'boot0.s' will be the
> 2-sector one. Thus there will a diversion fork, I can't think of a way
> around it. But I'm trying to make it as easy to follow as possible.
If this is JHB's thing, and he's got it in P4, wouldn't it be
better to let him take the lead and coordinate this than doing it
in some way you find convenient? I'm not sure that having 3 places
where the history of this file will be is appealing, especially if you
are making this fork in CVS for purely an ephemeral manner. I do not
find that a very attractive solution.
juli mallett. firstname.lastname@example.org. adrift in the pacific.