On Fri, 20 May 2011, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
quoted
is it intentional that you are leaving the hole in the numbering here?
I don't think there would be any issue with re-numbering 7-10, would it?
Well, the first time I tried to renumber those classes (to keep them
alphabetically sorted), I've been told not to do it. That's why I let
the hole in this case.
There won't be any issue in renumbering those classes (and we could sort them).
Maybe I can just send a new patch on top of this to sort them.
OK. Well, I don't really care personally much, I was just wondering why
leaving it unnecessarily sparse.
I have applied the whole series now, thanks.
PS: and thank you very much for applying so quickly the last patches I
sent.
I am preparing the tree for merge window push, so I rather have everything
sorted out in the upcoming day or two.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs