On 8/1/24 11:43, Warner Losh wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024, 9:39 AM Joe Clarke <mailto:jcla...@marcuscom.com>> wrote:
On 8/1/24 10:57, Warner Losh wrote:
> +if core.loaderTooOld() then
> +
On 8/1/24 10:57, Warner Losh wrote:
+if core.loaderTooOld() then
+
print("**")
+
print("**")
+ print("*
On 5/19/21 22:39, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:33 PM Zhenlei Huang wrote:
>
>>> IMHO, I'd like to see the RFC reference remain. I see rgrimes response
>>> that the RFC's can change with errata and bis docs, but the anchor still
>>> provides additional context that one can us
On 5/19/21 01:54, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 07:51:38PM -0400, Joe Clarke wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, why remove the RFC reference from the comment?
>
> May you please include the author of the change for such questions
To be fair, an obsolete RFC can be followed to the current document. Having an
anchor, even one that is obsolete, has value as a reference.
Joe
PGP Key : https://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
> On May 18, 2021, at 21:04, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why remove the
Just out of curiosity, why remove the RFC reference from the comment? Seems
useful for those that want to know why this is a good practice.
Joe
PGP Key : https://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
> On May 18, 2021, at 17:01, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>
> The branch main has been updated by donner:
>
