On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 06:56:17PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > NACK, this only addresses half of the review comments. >> >> Can you please explain 1207959552 is not 1GB? Do you happen to mean >> 1000000000? The reason the term 'GiB' exists is because while GB might >> mean 1000000000, its almost always misused to mean 1207959552. If >> thats what you meant, Why do you want to use that value when you >> yourself are saying that its less accurate? Also why is it so >> important to use the less accurate value that these patches have to be >> NACKed for it? > > Please check your facts before sending such inflammatory emails, thanks. > 1GiB is 1073741824, and I did check that before sending the very first mail > talking about 1GB. I indeed did check my facts as I explained in my follow-up emails that I made a mistake while checking it. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
