Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I agree completely with you while I think we should at least wait for
>>> a consensus _before_ commit.
>>
>> Sure. In this case, I think Jim was assuming this was a relatively
>> trivial fix and everyone was on the same page for it.
>
> Actually, it didn't strike me as a trivial fix at all.
> As for why I checked it in, I interpret this from Otavio,
> as an ACK,
No problem. It was a misunderstanding ;-)
> > All this looks good but I'd like to ask if you might try to write a
>
> especially, when the "but" part merely requests an *additional* test
> with what seems like a "would be nice", rather than "is required for ACK"
> condition.
Yes and it was but since I asked it I was waiting for your reply
before doing a better review of the patch.
Folks, let's back to the work and stop this stupid thread :-D
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
_______________________________________________
parted-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
