AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread michael . gerz
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's *known* broken? Because I have a patch at hand that works (at least it should be good enough for the

AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread michael . gerz
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: | | I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases | | Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's | *known* broken? I have no idea... it seems all my

Re: AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | | On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: | | | | I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases | | | | Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's | | *known*

Re: AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: | | I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases | | Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's | *known* broken? I have

AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread michael . gerz
>On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > >> I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases > >Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's >*known* broken? Because I have a patch at hand that works (at least it should be good enough for

AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread michael . gerz
>John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >| On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: >| >| > I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases >| >| Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's >| *known* broken? > >I have no idea... it seems

Re: AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | >John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | >| On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: | >| | >| > I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases | >| | >| Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's | >|

Re: AW: Re: [PATCH] CT cleanup - 3rd round

2006-05-09 Thread Abdelrazak Younes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:07:32AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: | | > I must confess that this patch will break CT in some cases | | Why is there such pushback against making branches for stuff that's | *known* broken? I