Frank, here seems to be a misunderstanding going on. I don't want to push this patch upstream against all odds. I merely wanted to find out what the status of this patch is. Because one possibility was that it had just been forgotten... > > So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding out if your > > concerns were addressed in the discussion or not. If I overlooked > > Then you should have stated that there were concerns raised in the > discussion and asked me if my concerns were addressed. From my perspective, I have done that: I marked the patch as RFC. I put you on the CC list. I asked about the possibility of applying it. It was not very elaborate, but hey, this is just a simple debugging patch :) I totally would have accepted a high level "No, that won't fly because...". Or a high level "This and that would need a change". Or something like that. I intentionally sent this out as RFC because I know there is some testing missing. I wanted to know if it is worth taking further steps with this patch. So, I simply wanted to know if you (still) have fundamental issues with the patch? That needs to be discussed first before we go into coding details. I think it is fine to not apply it if there are reasons. I'd like to know them, however, for a better understanding. For me, this is a super-super-side project, so if it causes too much hazzle, I just leave it here and know interested people can find it easier now. But if it could be applied with a sane amount of effort, I was offering that. Was that understandable? Kind regards, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
