Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
>>
>>This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
>>it is not correct.
>>
>> It is correct, this has been the rule for
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>So, if you are volunteering to fix the driver, great.
>
> Please send the network card for the non-working driver to me.
I don't have one.
>But there is no need to keep it around on the random chance that
>someone may someday fix it.
>
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
>
>This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
>it is not correct.
>
> It is correct, this has been the rule for all patches to date.
No, you are incorrect. You c
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
>
>This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
>it is not correct.
>
> It is correct, this has been the rule for all patches to date.
Can you please show us where
So, if you are volunteering to fix the driver, great.
Please send the network card for the non-working driver to me.
But there is no need to keep it around on the random chance that
someone may someday fix it.
Then we should remove all driver code that one belives is not used
anylonger
> Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but
it is not correct.
It is correct, this has been the rule for all patches to date.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Remove GNU Mach's unused device drivers
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>If a driver is redundant, then we have no need to care about it.
>If a driver doesn't work, we should not include it.
>
> If a driver doesn't work, then it should be fixed.
It is appalling that you should so conveniently trim my words for m
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
This is incorrect. You can say it five times, or fifty times, but it
is not correct.
Thomas
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.
If a driver is redundant, then we have no need to care about it.
If a driver doesn't work, we should not include it.
If a driver doesn't work, then it should be fixed.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
Seperate changes should have seperate headers.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
>>drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
>>
>> Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to
>> simply make the nati
>Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
>drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
>
> Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to
> simply make the native drivers work?
We don't have any need to make drivers
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
>drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
>
> Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to
> simply make the native drivers work?
We don'
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure what `adopt all users' means. Maybe you mean callees?
The conventional phrasing for functions here is to say "All callers
changed." For something which is a macro is is used but not, strictly
speaking, called, perhaps "All users cha
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm asking if there is logic to the split up, if there isn't, each
> change should be in a seperate ChangeLog entry. If there is, please
> explain such logic.
This is incorrect. It is perfectly fine to make multiple unrelated
changes in one chan
> Is there some kind of logic to how you split up the ChangeLog
> entries?
What exactly don't you understand about it?
I'm asking if there is logic to the split up, if there isn't, each
change should be in a seperate ChangeLog entry. If there is, please
explain such logic.
> How did
Hi,
On 2/15/06, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can however deduce the need for a file in the top-level directory
> containing something like ``If you want to work on the Mach kernel's core
> or system dependent parts or ..., be sure to reset your CVS checkout to
> the revision `gnu
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:27:02PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 13 Feb 2006 12:48:16 -0500, a ?crit :
> > 2006-02-13 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > * i386/util/gdt.h: Likewise.
> > * i386/util/gdt_sels.h: Likewise.
> > * i386/util/ldt.h: Likewi
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:15:32PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Is there some kind of logic to how you split up the ChangeLog entries?
What exactly don't you understand about it?
> How did you check that the files are ok to remove (it is a long list,
> so it is hard to check each file)?
I ch
Is there some kind of logic to how you split up the ChangeLog entries?
How did you check that the files are ok to remove (it is a long list,
so it is hard to check each file)? i386/utils/debug.h looks a
suspicious for example.
I'm not sure what `adopt all users' means. Maybe you mean callees?
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:39:41AM -0500, I wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:06:10AM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device drivers
> > > from the gnumach-1-branch that are not use
Hi,
Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 13 Feb 2006 12:48:16 -0500, a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:39:41AM -0500, I wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:06:10AM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Would there be any objections if I'd remove
Hello,
On 2/8/06, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to
> > simply make the native drivers work?
>
> Are you interested in reviving and maintaining e.g. NIC device drivers
> that got crudely fit into Mach more than fifteen years ago, based on
> _really_ old versio
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 11:01:57AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
>drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
>
> Care to explain what that would achive?
Removing obsolete, unused files from GNU Mach's code b
If you make a tag before and after the removal then go for it.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
[Back to the mailing list.]
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 03:06:10AM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> On 2/4/06, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device drivers
> > from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
>
> If you mean th
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device
drivers from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
Care to explain what that would achive? Wouldn't it be better to
simply make the native drivers work?
___
Bug-hurd mailing
Hi!
Would there be any objections if I'd remove all native device drivers
from the gnumach-1-branch that are not used anymore?
Regards,
Thomas
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
29 matches
Mail list logo
