On Sunday 22 November 2009 21:26:56 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 22 November 2009 22:19:47 Austin Foxley wrote: > > First step towards sanity: Let me commit the nptl_merge branch to > > master. If you haven't looked at it, I've got all the relevant changes > > for nptl grouped into related commits, and it's up to date with master > > as of today. > > > > I'm going ahead with Step 1 in a day or so, unless someone yells loudly. > > i would like to go through it first, at least as a "fresh set of eyes". i > dont want to see more accidental merge commits throwing out good code. > -mike
More code review's always nice, but it's been pending for three years now. Couldn't a fresh set of eyes go through it as easily after the merge as before? The nptl merge _will_ break stuff. We can't prevent that. But once it's in -dev, we can all test it, and we can fix it. Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
