Hi Tony, On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:47 -0500, Anthony Balkissoon wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 11:21 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > > You have to be careful with patches like this. Rafael doesn't have > > paperwork in place. If the patch is "too big" (the typical heuristic > > is "more than 10 lines) and there is more than one way to write it, > > then we can't commit it. Instead we have to either get paperwork > > (which from his email, I gather we would not be able to get) or > > rewrite the fix from the description of the bug. > > Should I revert this?
No, it is small (< 15 lines) and obviously the correct thing to do (hard to express this idea very differently in code - although you did clean it up to be in GNU style - thanks). To make that more clear you could comment the code/method to explain the serialization representation for the end-user. Cheers, Mark (*) See also http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
