On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br wrote:
I don't like this change. It messes with the initialization sequence, which is not a good thing. Instead of shift more and more things backwards, we should fix any incorrect clock calculations here.
Right however the clock calculation is right but in regular initialization sequence this information is printed too early so Fabio has moved it here to change this ordering.
I agree it is not the best solution but a comment here makes it clear why this has been done.
I don't think I was clear. I advocate the inclusion of this comment. I was temped to drop this method and Fabio explained why it was need. A day after, Ashok Kumar Reddy kourla (message id 4FE52817.1090803@gmail.com) sent a patch to drop it too. So it is clear this needs a comment on code to avoid wasting people time trying to remove it.
I agree we can work in a way to remove this duplication but let's get this patch in and later we can clean it.