On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 16:51 -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > I would prefer to fix the comment when this change actually > happens. I prefer comments to refer to the current reality, rather > than past/future situation.
Uh, no. device_rename is perfectly fine, even other people may use it in the future. > When you introduce wireless renaming, you > will need to verify the whole chain anyway, so you might as well fix > the comment while merging wireless renaming. No again, device_rename is perfectly fine API, I shouldn't have to look at it's internals to see if it's broken in my use case. Even if it's only a broken comment. I'm not going to respin your patches though, if this doesn't make it in I don't care. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
