-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Alon,
Are you saying that there's no way you can generate a series of fixes (=patches) that apply on top of your previous patches? Or, if the fixes are fairly trivial, you could provide a diff of the old and new trees and explain what changes are included. Then the new tree could be pulled as-is. - -- Samuli Seppänen Community Manager OpenVPN Technologies, Inc irc freenode net: mattock > No. > Please don't take the patches from the mailing list. > As I explicitly requested in the past *SEVERAL* times. > > I've done minor fixups in my repository. > As you see my work is in good quality and without comments, issues I > fixed needs to be fixed in tree as well. > > As I requested this approach several times and got no rejection I > assumed this is acceptable. > > This is a *COMPLETE* show stopper. > > If you insist in doing that this way I will resend the patch series to the list. > > Alon. > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, David Sommerseth > <openvpn.l...@topphemmelig.net> wrote: > On 22/03/12 12:47, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM, David Sommerseth > >>> <openvpn.l...@topphemmelig.net> wrote: > >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >>>> > >>>> On 19/03/12 16:16, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >>>>> The only component that is in question is lzo. I still think this > >>>>> is packager responsibility, not sure why this is an exception. But > >>>>> if it will make people happy, I will enable lzo by default. All > >>>>> the other components are optional by they nature, and again it is > >>>>> up to packager to decide what good for his configuration. > >>>> > >>>> Hi Alon, > >>>> > >>>> Okay, based on the discussion on this thread, it makes sense to then > >>>> flip LZO to be enabled by default. > >>>> > >>>> No need to hurry with any patches, as I can add such a patch on top > >>>> of everything when the merging is completed. The patch will be > >>>> submitted to the mailing list when it's ready to be implemented. > >>>> > >>> > >>> OK, great. I will modify the branch with this (rebase) so it won't > >>> create additional noise. So you be able to do a clean pull with > >>> complete feature set. > > No, I will take this change as an additional patch - as I stated in my > previous response. I don't want to base such changes on patches which > are already reviewed and ACKed. That invalidates the work queue I'm on > already. I'm taking patches from the mailing list, that works very well > in my workflow - and it gives a good chance of providing the Acked-by > statements in the git log. > > > kind regards, > > David Sommerseth > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9scUIACgkQwp2X7RmNIqOJXgCeIg5I9bFheKZAsOlVu+X2tt+d YZQAnA2OE75kTWbrszdeni1jnc5ESIlg =kb/l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
