Andy Green wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > | |> Again, the nspy part is but 3 of the entire patchset that got dumped > | |> out. I think it's rather useful, but if this all it takes to keep it > | > | Great, why don't we forget about nspy stuff for now. Nothing is "dumped > ... > | Well, let me take a closer look with this "nspy is only 3 of my 17 > | patches" in mind. The invasive aspect of nspy is the biggest problem, > | if we move that out for another time it will only help. > > nspy calls seem to be embedded throughout the other patches too. > > I don't really understand your code yet, but what I am doing at the > moment is removing the three patches with nspy in the name and then > going through removing all the nspy calls in the other patches using > only the blinding light of my ignorance to guide me. > > If that sounds like a bad idea to you, let me know.
It doesn't sound like a good use of your time, honestly. At this point, just remove all the "mw" patches from the andy branch entirely. I'll submit a patch to pull out the remaining fragments of those patches from the stable to clean that out entirely. And then when I have time (this weekend, perhaps) I'll re-do the patch sets on separate branches on my site, and those interested can figure out which particular patches they find acceptable and of interest as time goes on. > - -Andy > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkhs5Z4ACgkQOjLpvpq7dMquFwCeNQ8TJNb8BcJ3lXv6042GPwTV > l/0AniULhxXvkyuz8tBIpalPZTFJJtxX > =2ugU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > Mike (mwester)
