On 11/11/2009 07:36 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:57:46PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> On 11/05/2009 12:09 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>> >>> I'm assuming Trond's objection is just to the patch changelog >>> (specifically, to the statement that any header "should be compilation >>> independent"), not to these specific changes. >>> >>> --b. >> >> Ping >> >> Bruce? Trond? whatsup? >> >> Can Benny put these patches in his tree? He said he would be happy to hold >> them for a while, but only if they will be eventually accepted into the >> tree as a pnfs pre-requisite. Please ACK on these patches? >> >> I have to make all these put-the-includes-back patches to just make the tree >> compile. > > They're fine by me. > > (Can't speak for Trond, but maybe his initial objection would be met > just editing the changelog to replace the absolute "Any header should be > compilation independent" by the particular advantages you saw in this > case.) > I don't see why. Please advise? "should be compilation independent", from what I understand of the English language, is suggestive and advisory only. Now, if I was using "must" or "shall" like the standard do then that would mean a mandatory directive. But I'm only saying "should" which is like saying: "I suggest", or "it is recommended". Am I misunderstanding the language? Any way the commit log is just my saying so, my sign-off it's not the word of Linux-god, is it? > --b. > >> >> Boaz >> Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
