On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-10 at 16:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Paul, your changes make some logical sense but they break the workflow >> of the people that have to maintain the package. That's where most of >> the pushback is going to come from. > > (Did I sound annoyed about any pushback? I hope I didn't.) No, not at all. And I didn't think you were. I was just offering extra context. > So perhaps I'll end up with the original patch here (ie, adding the "-s" flag) > as the messages "make oldnoconfig" now generates hopefully aren't relevant for > your workflow. We'll see. I think that makes sense. We'd have to try them to be sure. > You're not, well, principally opposed to patches that make sense from the > perspective of people rebuilding locally, are you? Not opposed at all, but it can't be at the expense of people that have to do things with this package multiple times a day. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
