From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] lucio- Message-ID: <20020109073250.H12098@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20020109050805.9394F19A70@mail.cse.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020109050805.9394F19A70@mail.cse.psu.edu>; from Russ Cox on Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:08:04AM -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 07:32:51 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c4f42d2-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:08:04AM -0500, Russ Cox wrote: > > > No offense meant, but doesn't this show precisely what CVS's strength > > is? Had you recorded the fix, we wouldn't be still looking for it :-) > > It shows that I should keep better > records of what I do each day. > Which dump does wonderfully on your behalf. I confess to a similar difficulty with tracking my activities. Hm. Old Univac Exec-8 had some form of file versioning that might also be worth knowing about. The editors were aware of it, but it was at filesystem level, in some fashion quite different from what is conventional today. > Even if I had the CVS source under > CVS, I probably would have thrown out > the repository when I ported the new one. > Further, I'm not sure whether the bug was > in CVS or in APE. > Well, maybe. A remote repository (in my opinion, this is CVS's biggest improvement on RCS, but consensus lies elsewhere :-) would have been harder to clobber. Still, a broken APE library would be hard to identify from changes (or lack of changes - that would be at least an indication) to a CVS repository. > CVS wouldn't have helped any more than the > dump here. > I am suitably chastised :-) > The bug is in /sys/src/ape/lib/ap/plan9/getcwd.c. > Replace the entire file with: > Thank you for finding this. I had just started to follow your instructions, but got tangled up in my very limited understanding of acid (I am debugger-shy at best, ACID looks wonderful, but hard to wrap one's old-fashioned mind around). > Exercise to the reader: find the fd leak in the > original. > You must be joking, right? There's no relationship between the original and the version you provided :-) Well, nearly no relationship. I wondered about the "entire file" when I first read it. I hope _never_ to have to find out what the "newkernel" stuff and its ilk were intended for. ++L