On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:56:07PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:59:54 +0100,
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:43:39PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > At Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:45:07 +0100,
> > > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > Unless I missed something,
At Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:59:54 +0100,
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:43:39PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > At Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:45:07 +0100,
> > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > Unless I missed something, it seems that grub_raid_array contains
> > > redundant
> > > information (`n
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:45:07PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Unless I missed something, it seems that grub_raid_array contains redundant
> information (`name' is already present via `disk->name'). I propose to
> simplify it this way.
Committed.
--
Robert Millan
I know my rights; I want
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:43:39PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:45:07 +0100,
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > Unless I missed something, it seems that grub_raid_array contains redundant
> > information (`name' is already present via `disk->name'). I propose to
> > simplify it thi
At Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:45:07 +0100,
Robert Millan wrote:
> Unless I missed something, it seems that grub_raid_array contains redundant
> information (`name' is already present via `disk->name'). I propose to
> simplify it this way.
No idea why, I don't have the time to look at the actual code, but
Unless I missed something, it seems that grub_raid_array contains redundant
information (`name' is already present via `disk->name'). I propose to
simplify it this way.
--
Robert Millan
I know my rights; I want my phone call!
What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on
