EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs
trini at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Mar 21 04:25:37 EST 2002
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:04:35AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Tom Rini <trini at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > Sure there is, for it to be accepted.
> Wait a minute, why am I even talking to you?
Because you enjoy our conversations? :)
> Mark said he is the responsible
> maintainer and promised to push my patch in a few days if there is no
> consensus by then, and I think I'll just wait a few days and then ask
> him to stick to his word.
And then you'll have to go and improve the patch anyhow, if you're going
to stick to your word. :)
> (I'm willing to bet $50 that in the next few days there will be no
> consensus nor will anyone else offer a counterpatch.)
> > And would you please make it
> > versus the _galileo tree
> Sorry, no, that would be a step backward and we need to move forward.
How is that a step backward? All of the current galileo work is in that
tree. And a quick diff of the enet drivers in the two trees shows a
good deal of differences, many of which aren't just cosmetic. Isn't it
more 'natural' to update the most up to date file?
Tom Rini (TR1265)
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev