Hi Roger,

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:51:21AM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:08:02 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:

quoted

The user that I am suggest using #1, but the maintainer that
I am prefers #2. So I think I'll just go with the patch for
the specific issue, and only consider the backport for my
personal trees the day I have time to spend on this. That way
we get one small patch for one small issue.

I'd like to get your opinion on this, and to check with you
if you are basically OK with that change in principle.

The major changes in 2.6 via-rhine have been in use for quite a while. It's
clearly an improvement over the one in 2.4 and every bit as stable. I'm not
sure a backport is worth it, though, especially considering that it's
incredibly easy to break via-rhine for some odd hardware or use case.

For 2.4, I'd stay with the devil that I know -- i.e. make minimal changes
only.

This is exactly the type of information I needed.

But whatever you decide is fine with me.

Your arguments are more than enough. You know the driver, I don't. Knowing
that you trust it in its current shape is perfect for me. I'll stay on 2.4
version.

I trust that the 2.4
maintainer knows what is best for those users. Better than me, anyway.

Hey, I only do what driver authors and maintainers think is reasonable :-)

Thanks very much Roger,
Willy