-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/01/11 11:00, Samuli Seppänen wrote: > This patch depends on patch 2/6. Patch 6/6 depends on this patch. Maybe > integrating them into one would have made more sense? :) >
Patch 5/6 and Patch 6/6 could be merged. Patch 2/6 is doing more changes, but I see the pattern so you might be right that they could all be merged into one patch. However small commits isn't necessarily a bad idea, so I have no complaints about this fragmentation - as long as it is clear they do belong to each other. When applying to the tree, I will probably rearrange the order of these three so they come together. This patch gets an ACK from me anyway. kind regards, David Sommerseth -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk0kUVsACgkQDC186MBRfroPDgCcCtu0vjtgRwwe2XnysSRHlD7H Q0sAnjfpPDUz3kVoTBh/OFPrXO59WAOk =f2pw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
