On 8/2/07, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can understand that - that is partly why I suggested to wait a little, and see if and the > two drafts stabilise. If there were updates to 4342 then I would also be all for tracking > them. However, 4342 is written in such a clever way that updates of 3448 do not apply. > I am in support of the 3448 draft changes that are in the kernel so far, since to my > understanding they improve the performance over an `orthodox' 4342; the point being that > no one cares how orthodox the implementation is when the performance is awful. > Unfortunately I can't really wait too long as it is for my thesis. That's OK as I can reference which draft I use. It has been suggested for CCID3.bis (and agreed) that CCID3 should track TFRC. > | If you do have a list of them it would be great. I see quite a few > | comments about bis in the code. > I don't have a list at present, need to go through the works. Will post at a later point. > Don't worry too much about this, as this is my research so don't want to waste your time :-) > Forking trees is actually not so bad with regard to tracking the changes. I am doing that > frequently for the test tree when the netdev tree changes. If there are not too many subtrees, > (more than a handful), I'd say that this is feasible. It also makes it easier to track what > is going on, and can be used as a temporary workspace while patch sets are under discussion. > Yes, that's what I do in effect - I work off your tree and occasionally resync. Ian -- Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
