On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Michael Banck <michael.ba...@credativ.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2017, 21:32 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander: > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck > > <michael.ba...@credativ.de> wrote: > > > Agreed, and applied as one patch. Except I noticed you also fixed a > > couple of entries which were missing the progname in the messages -- I > > broke those out to a separate patch instead. > > Thanks! > > > Made a small change to "using as much I/O as available" rather than > > "as possible", which I think is a better wording, along with the > > change of the idle wording I suggested before. (but feel free to point > > it out to me if that's wrong). > > LGTM, I apparently missed your suggestion when I re-read the thread. > > I am just wondering whether this could/should be back-patched, maybe? It > is not a bug fix, of course, but OTOH is rather small and probably > helpful to some users on current releases. > > Good point. We should definitely back-patch the documentation updates. Not 100% sure about the others, as it's a small behaviour change. But since it's only in verbose mode, I doubt it is very likely to break anybodys scripts relying on certain output or so. What do others think? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
