On 06/10/12 23:05, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Am 06.10.2012 19:02, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> just for my information, why do we use the 3.2 kernel for BuC ?
>>
>> Why not using the 3.4 or 3.5 stable versions ?
>> Or the upcoming 3.6 branch that will have good optimizations for network
on 06.10.2012 18:27, Yves Blusseau wrote:
> Erich this is for example some of the whitespace errors you have in your
> patches:
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/112112/Screenshots/0zl_w0uz~4l7.png
Nice, but why would GIT care.
>
> Also before merging a topic branch into an integration branch it's bett
Yves
thanks for your answer
on 06.10.2012 18:12, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>
> Le 6 oct. 2012 à 14:22, Erich Titl a écrit :
>
>> Hi Yves
>>
>> on 06.10.2012 10:07, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>>>:$
>>> Le 5 oct. 2012 à 19:07, Erich Titl a écrit :
>>>
Hi Folks
I have gotten at a point where
Am 06.10.2012 19:02, schrieb Yves Blusseau:
> Hi all,
>
> just for my information, why do we use the 3.2 kernel for BuC ?
>
> Why not using the 3.4 or 3.5 stable versions ?
> Or the upcoming 3.6 branch that will have good optimizations for network like
> TCP Small Queues or TCP Fast Open ?
Hell
Hi all,
just for my information, why do we use the 3.2 kernel for BuC ?
Why not using the 3.4 or 3.5 stable versions ?
Or the upcoming 3.6 branch that will have good optimizations for network like
TCP Small Queues or TCP Fast Open ?
Regards,
Yves
Erich this is for example some of the whitespace errors you have in your
patches:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/112112/Screenshots/0zl_w0uz~4l7.png
Also before merging a topic branch into an integration branch it's better to
squash several commits into one or two.
Your nameif integration take 4 commit
Le 6 oct. 2012 à 14:22, Erich Titl a écrit :
> Hi Yves
>
> on 06.10.2012 10:07, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>>
>> Le 5 oct. 2012 à 19:07, Erich Titl a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Folks
>>>
>>> I have gotten at a point where I want to push my stuff.
>>>
>>> @Yves could you have a look at my merge output to ju
On 10/05/2012 09:32 PM, Andrew wrote:
> On 05/10/12 17:14, Mike Noyes wrote:
>> Everyone,
>> Is Bering-uClibc capable of Multi-WAN like:
>>
>> Peplink - Dual-WAN, Multi-WAN Internet Link Load Balancing Routers
>> http://www.peplink.com/
>> -or-
>> Cisco RV Series Multi-WAN VPN Router
>> http://www.
Hi Yves
on 06.10.2012 10:07, Yves Blusseau wrote:
>
> Le 5 oct. 2012 à 19:07, Erich Titl a écrit :
>
>> Hi Folks
>>
>> I have gotten at a point where I want to push my stuff.
>>
>> @Yves could you have a look at my merge output to just _guess_ if it
>> looks OK
>>
>> mega@luna:~/leaf/devel/leaf.
Le 5 oct. 2012 à 19:07, Erich Titl a écrit :
> Hi Folks
>
> I have gotten at a point where I want to push my stuff.
>
> @Yves could you have a look at my merge output to just _guess_ if it
> looks OK
>
> mega@luna:~/leaf/devel/leaf.new/bering-uclibc> git branch
> maint
> master
> * nameif
>
10 matches
Mail list logo