Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Would it suffice to change the patch description for this patch to be
> accepted, or do you still want this patch to be dropped / changes? We
> could use fdcur, fdtrg, devcur, devtrg, erasecur, erasetrg to save the
> typing, but, personally, I find dev_current easier to read.
When I look at the code resulting after applying all your 6 patches,
I see little remainings of the origial code. I wonder if it makes
sense to claim that this is was an evolutionary change. Let's face
the facts, it ain't so. There is old code, and there is new code,
with some parts in common, but the other parts are replaced, not
changed.
You can see this easily from the statistics:
- Your patch series which claims it was evolutionary changes adds to
1932 lines of patches.
- Diffing just the original and the new version gives a patch of only
865 lines.
- The old file had 778 lines of code, the new file has 954.
I suggest we no longer attempt to make this look like small changes,
step by step. It ain't so. It is one big change which ressults in an
old file being replaced by a new one.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If programming was easy, they wouldn't need something as complicated
as a human being to do it, now would they?
- L. Wall & R. L. Schwartz, _Programming Perl_
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
