On 20.04.2009 15:25, Peter Stuge wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> Should I now revert the table part of the patch because I nak it >> and the original conversion to multiline had more acks than the >> conversion back to single-line? >> Sorry, but this is just silly. >> > > I hope you agree with Luc's and my points about how the wider format > is preferable. >
Not really. AFAICS the wide vs. multiline issue is what the disagreement is about. After all , I acked the original conversion to multiline because I didn't like the 2-line format. >> Is there any reason to hold off committing my own non-1.0 patches? >> > > I don't know. Which do you mean? Is it those things in that other > thread, where some are in trac but you also had some good new tickets? > The majority of these patches have no trac entry. > There is too much to keep trac(k) of and the list isn't a great > tracker for me. Sorry. :\ > I prefer tracking issues on a list because it works even when I'm offline. That's probably why the patches each of us has in mind differs a lot. Sorry. I didn't mean to have you look for stuff which isn't where you look. (Did trac get the mail-patches-to-list feature in the meantime?) Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
