Tom Rini [off-list ref] wrote:
Sure there is, for it to be accepted.
Wait a minute, why am I even talking to you? Mark said he is the responsible
maintainer and promised to push my patch in a few days if there is no consensus
by then, and I think I'll just wait a few days and then ask him to stick to his
word. (I'm willing to bet $50 that in the next few days there will be no
consensus nor will anyone else offer a counterpatch.)
And would you please make it
versus the _galileo tree
Sorry, no, that would be a step backward and we need to move forward.
MS
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:04:35AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Tom Rini [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Sure there is, for it to be accepted.
Wait a minute, why am I even talking to you?
Because you enjoy our conversations? :)
Mark said he is the responsible
maintainer and promised to push my patch in a few days if there is no
consensus by then, and I think I'll just wait a few days and then ask
him to stick to his word.
And then you'll have to go and improve the patch anyhow, if you're going
to stick to your word. :)
(I'm willing to bet $50 that in the next few days there will be no
consensus nor will anyone else offer a counterpatch.)
quoted
And would you please make it
versus the _galileo tree
Sorry, no, that would be a step backward and we need to move forward.
How is that a step backward? All of the current galileo work is in that
tree. And a quick diff of the enet drivers in the two trees shows a
good deal of differences, many of which aren't just cosmetic. Isn't it
more 'natural' to update the most up to date file?
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/