[coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom - board enable - reconstruct table.
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Mon Apr 20 15:36:18 CEST 2009
On 20.04.2009 15:25, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> Should I now revert the table part of the patch because I nak it
>> and the original conversion to multiline had more acks than the
>> conversion back to single-line?
>> Sorry, but this is just silly.
> I hope you agree with Luc's and my points about how the wider format
> is preferable.
Not really. AFAICS the wide vs. multiline issue is what the disagreement
is about. After all , I acked the original conversion to multiline
because I didn't like the 2-line format.
>> Is there any reason to hold off committing my own non-1.0 patches?
> I don't know. Which do you mean? Is it those things in that other
> thread, where some are in trac but you also had some good new tickets?
The majority of these patches have no trac entry.
> There is too much to keep trac(k) of and the list isn't a great
> tracker for me. Sorry. :\
I prefer tracking issues on a list because it works even when I'm
offline. That's probably why the patches each of us has in mind differs
a lot. Sorry. I didn't mean to have you look for stuff which isn't where
(Did trac get the mail-patches-to-list feature in the meantime?)
More information about the coreboot