On Wednesday 30 November 2005 18:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jeff> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:37:12PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> Can I second the "send UML patches to Jeff and let him send them on
> >> to Andrew/Linus" ap
> "Jeff" == Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:37:12PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Can I second the "send UML patches to Jeff and let him send them on to
>> Andrew/Linus" approach? Please? It makes it much easier for me to
>> test, with a k
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 21 November 2005 04:25, Nix wrote:
>> I hope linux-libc-headers isn't dead. It looked like it was turning into
>> a very good aggregation point, with patches coming in from Ubuntu and RH
>> among others.
>
> Hopefully he won't mind me quoting fro
On Monday 21 November 2005 04:25, Nix wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Friday 18 November 2005 20:33, Blaisorblade wrote:
> >> Btw, why hasn't maszur went to post patches to kernel headers to make
> >> them includable from userspace instead of merging kernel changes into
> >>
On Sunday 20 November 2005 00:40, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
> > was going on. (And #2 was the case: once I found out it was the 0 length
> > files, I could fix that. I didn't expect 0 length files screwing up the
> > #include search paths. The #include sea
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Rob Landley wrote:
was going on. (And #2 was the case: once I found out it was the 0 length
files, I could fix that. I didn't expect 0 length files screwing up the
#include search paths. The #include search paths are confusing, I'm still a
bit fuzzy on the difference betw
On Friday 18 November 2005 20:33, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > When absolutely necessary, yes. In theory Jeff's tree works for Jeff so
> > i'm trying to get it to work for me _without_ fixing it myself. (Instead
> > I bug _him_. :) But I'm on a wildly different distro (ubuntu on x86 and
> > PLD on x8
On Friday 18 November 2005 09:41, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2005 01:51, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Friday 18 November 2005 08:17, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > On Friday 18 November 2005 01:08, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 16 November 2005 14:36, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > >
On Friday 18 November 2005 18:55, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:37:12PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Can I second the "send UML patches to Jeff and let him send them on to
> > Andrew/Linus" approach? Please? It makes it much easier for me to test,
> > with a known working system
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:37:12PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> Can I second the "send UML patches to Jeff and let him send them on to
> Andrew/Linus" approach? Please? It makes it much easier for me to test,
> with a known working system plus UML-only changes...
I never firsted this. In fact,
On Friday 18 November 2005 17:52, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > I tend to send directly to Andrew and he forwards them to Linus (in
> > > many cases so fast that I wonder if they appear in one -mm release),
> > > but I currently do not have a public tree.
>
> And you're welcome to send directly to Andrew,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:17:03AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Definitely Jeff's tree is a first filter for his work, but I've not seen it
> > working a lot as a collector, especially for little fixes - but there it
> > makes sense.
I'd like it to be a collector of patches. I just don't see a l
On Friday 18 November 2005 01:51, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2005 08:17, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Friday 18 November 2005 01:08, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 16 November 2005 14:36, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > Linus said this:
>
> Btw, where does this quote come from?
Li
On Friday 18 November 2005 08:17, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2005 01:08, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 November 2005 14:36, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > Linus said this:
Btw, where does this quote come from?
> > > > I think one reason -mm has worked so damn well (apart from
On Friday 18 November 2005 01:08, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2005 14:36, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Linus said this:
> > > I think one reason -mm has worked so damn well (apart from you being
> > > "The Calmest Man on Earth"(tm)) is because it's essentially been that
> > > buffer fo
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 14:36, Rob Landley wrote:
> Linus said this:
> > I think one reason -mm has worked so damn well (apart from you being "The
> > Calmest Man on Earth"(tm)) is because it's essentially been that buffer
> > for anything non-trivial. Sometimes the "n+2" has been a lot more
Linus said this:
> I think one reason -mm has worked so damn well (apart from you being "The
> Calmest Man on Earth"(tm)) is because it's essentially been that buffer
> for anything non-trivial. Sometimes the "n+2" has been a lot more than
> "n+2" in fact, and that's often good.
>
> (And at the sa
17 matches
Mail list logo
