Am 21.09.2015 um 18:54 schrieb Peter Hurley: > On 09/21/2015 09:38 AM, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> Am 21.09.2015 um 15:13 schrieb Peter Hurley: >>> On 09/18/2015 08:38 AM, Tilman Schmidt wrote: >>>> Am 17.09.2015 um 20:13 schrieb Peter Hurley: >>>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Tilman Schmidt <til...@imap.cc> wrote: >> [...] >>>>>> - The requirement for line disciplines to set receive_room wasn't (and >>>>>> btw still isn't) documented anywhere, so it's unlikely anything actively >>>>>> relied on it. >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless, that is the requirement, and what every other in-tree line >>>>> discipline does. >>>> >>>> Your word for it. Still I don't understand the curious resistance to >>>> documenting it. If it is the requirement, why keep it secret? >>> >>> Nothing sinister here :) >>> >>> Feel free to submit documentation patches. >> >> I already did. For some unknown reason nobody wants to merge them. > > I vaguely recall that. A quick search reminded me there were unaddressed > comments wrt that patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/14/608
Ah, so that's the blocking condition? How can I address that comment in order to unblock that patch? -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: til...@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
