On 7 Apr 2016, at 23:33, Eric Blake <[email protected]> wrote: >> This back compatibility thing is the thing I thought should be a 'MUST' >> but you and Wouter think (and I accepted) should be a 'SHOULD'. But >> it should not be a 'should'. It's now - well it is >> after MAY/SHOULD/MUST patch - a SHOULD elsewhere (search >> for 'backwards'. >> >> So s/should/SHOULD/ in both cases. > > Patch 1 is my wording tweak (straight motion of that paragraph); patch 2 > is what changes s/should/SHOULD/ in the paragraph's new location (part > of the conflict resolutions I had to do to get to v6 of your patch). > >> I'm a bit puzzled as to how that was a lowercase 'should' in the first >> place. It's upper case after applying v5 of my SHOULD/MUST/MAY >> patch. Just wondering in case there is anything else missed. > > It's because patch 1/2 is applied _prior_ to your SHOULD/MUST/MAY. I > think it's all correct after both patches, in the order supplied in my > series.
Aaarggh. Mail arrived out of order and it's 23:36 here. Sorry. In which case: Reviewed-by: Alex Bligh <[email protected]> -- Alex Bligh
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
