At 2017-10-31T08:10:47+0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-opages) wrote: > My apologies for not weighing in sooner. I see you got a lot of input from > Branden! (Thanks, Branden!) How shall we move forward? Possibilities: > > 1. I apply your original patch as is. > 2. You rework your patch incorporating those changes from Branden > that seem uncontroversial to you, and I apply, and then we > discuss any further changes that may be needed. > 3. If all changes from Branden seem uncontroversial, I apply\ > your patch, his patch, and then we discuss any further changes > that may be needed. > > I suspect 2 or 3 is the way to go, but I await your input. If the set of my changes accepted is not null, I'm happy to prepare diffs for any parallel changes that are necessary to cciss(4) and hpsa(4), which share some material with the proposed smartpqi(4). -- Regards, Branden
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
