Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
it is not correct.
It is correct, this has been the rule for all patches to date.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
So, if you are volunteering to fix the driver, great.
Please send the network card for the non-working driver to me.
But there is no need to keep it around on the random chance that
someone may someday fix it.
Then we should remove all driver code that one belives is not used
anylonger
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
it is not correct.
It is correct, this has been the rule for all patches to date.
Can you please show us where this rule
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
it is not correct.
It is correct, this has been the rule for all patches to date.
No, you are incorrect. You can say it
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, if you are volunteering to fix the driver, great.
Please send the network card for the non-working driver to me.
I don't have one.
But there is no need to keep it around on the random chance that
someone may someday fix it.
Then we
Marco Gerards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
it is not correct.
It is correct, this has been the rule for all patches to date.
Is there some kind of logic to how you split up the ChangeLog
entries?
What exactly don't you understand about it?
I'm asking if there is logic to the split up, if there isn't, each
change should be in a seperate ChangeLog entry. If there is, please
explain such logic.
How did
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm asking if there is logic to the split up, if there isn't, each
change should be in a seperate ChangeLog entry. If there is, please
explain such logic.
This is incorrect. It is perfectly fine to make multiple unrelated
changes in one changelog
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure what `adopt all users' means. Maybe you mean callees?
The conventional phrasing for functions here is to say All callers
changed. For something which is a macro is is used but not, strictly
speaking, called, perhaps All users changed or
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to
simply make the native drivers work?
We don't have
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to
simply make the native drivers work?
We don't have any need to make drivers
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to
simply make the native drivers
Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
If a driver is redundant, then we have no need to care about it.
If a driver doesn't work, we should not include it.
If a driver doesn't work, then it should be fixed.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but it
is not correct.
Thomas
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a driver is redundant, then we have no need to care about it.
If a driver doesn't work, we should not include it.
If a driver doesn't work, then it should be fixed.
It is appalling that you should so conveniently trim my words for me.
What
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: bug-hurd@gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a driver
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:15:32PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Is there some kind of logic to how you split up the ChangeLog entries?
What exactly don't you understand about it?
How did you check that the files are ok to remove (it is a long list,
so it is hard to check each file)?
I
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:27:02PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 13 Feb 2006 12:48:16 -0500, a ?crit :
2006-02-13 Thomas Schwinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* i386/util/gdt.h: Likewise.
* i386/util/gdt_sels.h: Likewise.
* i386/util/ldt.h: Likewise.
Hi,
On 2/15/06, Thomas Schwinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can however deduce the need for a file in the top-level directory
containing something like ``If you want to work on the Mach kernel's core
or system dependent parts or ..., be sure to reset your CVS checkout to
the revision
Hi,
Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 13 Feb 2006 12:48:16 -0500, a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:39:41AM -0500, I wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:06:10AM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
On 2/4/06, Thomas Schwinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:39:41AM -0500, I wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:06:10AM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
On 2/4/06, Thomas Schwinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device drivers
from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
Is there some kind of logic to how you split up the ChangeLog entries?
How did you check that the files are ok to remove (it is a long list,
so it is hard to check each file)? i386/utils/debug.h looks a
suspicious for example.
I'm not sure what `adopt all users' means. Maybe you mean callees?
Hello,
On 2/8/06, Thomas Schwinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to
simply make the native drivers work?
Are you interested in reviving and maintaining e.g. NIC device drivers
that got crudely fit into Mach more than fifteen years ago, based on
_really_ old versions on
[Back to the mailing list.]
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:06:10AM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
On 2/4/06, Thomas Schwinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device drivers
from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
If you mean those in
If you make a tag before and after the removal then go for it.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 11:01:57AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
Care to explain what that would achive?
Removing obsolete, unused files from GNU Mach's code
27 matches
Mail list logo
