On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzelt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:53 PM, akuster808 <akuster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/09/2018 03:02 PM, Andreas Müller wrote:
>>> This adresses the comments for recent patch which updated nm to 1.10.6 and 
>>> is a
>>> follow-up for [1].
>> There is a form of this  already in my stagging/master-next. Should it
>> be removed and replaced by this one?
> Please replace - with the first version I introduced a parse error!
> Andreas
Hi Armin,

Just checked master-next: There is still V1
(30b50a479c496e722d8ca590e60d3b34bcda2d67) of this patch which causes
parse errors. Your follow-up
(45cd132ff9d64902eb0152b5a3ee4c1a1c9504f5) patch fixes parsing but
breaks the logic.

Sorry that I have to say this: Our collaboration is far from working:
I wrote this several times that V1 breaks parsing / you asked in in
this thread which patch to take but still I see you have taken the
wrong version.

Don't misunderstand me: I don't want to criticise your work because I
know you very busy and take care of many issues - there is lots more
than checking my patches :)

Current situation causes extra efforts for both of us so what can we
do to improve the situation?

For networkmanager: I had to learn that musl is not fixed. Although I
don't plan to use musl I suggest to send V3 with fixed musl because I
really want to get this closed.

Openembedded-devel mailing list

Reply via email to