> >>>> Do you have any concrete suggestions (i.e., some actual text) for > >>>> improvements to the patch description? Earlier in your message you > >>>> mentioned that Will's comment: > >>>> > >>>> LKMM offers stronger guarantees that can portably be relied upon > >>>> in the codebase. > >>>> > >>>> would make a good addition. Suitably edited, it could be added to the > >>>> description. I can think of a few other things myself, but I'd like to > >>>> hear your thoughts. Anything else? > >>> > >>> Yes: I do sometimes have the impression that your "rules" for trimming > >>> text in emails/replies are too aggressive... > >> > >> Andrea, by saying "Yes:", do you mean you have something else to be added? > > > > Indeed (examples in the trimmed text).
"examples" of "concrete suggestions" (pros or cons) to amend the log. > > So, you mean just amending commit log does not work for you? I can't really answer this...; let's see the revisited log first. Andrea > > > > > > >> I don't think you do, but want to make sure. > >> > >> I'm a bit surprised to see all you wanted was the amendment of the > >> commit log... > > > > Well, I said that it was my only current constructive argument... > > This thread is getting quite hard for me to follow... > > Akira > > > > > Andrea > > > > > >> > >> Akira > >> > >>> > >>> Andrea > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Alan > >>>> > >> >
