On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:06:21AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:53:29AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > To tell you the truth, I rather think there's not much point in keeping
> > > usb-try-to-debug-bug-8561.patch around. Anything
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:53:29AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > To tell you the truth, I rather think there's not much point in keeping
> > usb-try-to-debug-bug-8561.patch around. Anything seriously wrong that
> > it could catch ought to have shown up long
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:53:29AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
To tell you the truth, I rather think there's not much point in keeping
usb-try-to-debug-bug-8561.patch around. Anything seriously wrong that
it could catch ought to have shown up long ago. And
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:06:21AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:53:29AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
To tell you the truth, I rather think there's not much point in keeping
usb-try-to-debug-bug-8561.patch around. Anything seriously
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:53:29AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> To tell you the truth, I rather think there's not much point in keeping
> usb-try-to-debug-bug-8561.patch around. Anything seriously wrong that
> it could catch ought to have shown up long ago. And it is now clear
> that bug 8561 has
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:53:29AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
To tell you the truth, I rather think there's not much point in keeping
usb-try-to-debug-bug-8561.patch around. Anything seriously wrong that
it could catch ought to have shown up long ago. And it is now clear
that bug 8561 has
6 matches
Mail list logo
