On 10/14/2014 05:03 AM, Karel Zak wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:48:06PM -0400, JWP wrote: >> On 09/28/2014 01:55 PM, Sami Kerola wrote: >>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, JWP wrote: >> separate patch changing all occurrences would be preferred? I would >> be happy to add that to my todo list if the project wants it? > > Maybe it would be better to think about whole code refactoring as it's > horrible code. It's probably last so horrible code in util-linux. > > (refactoring means: add control struct, small smart functions to > modify the struct and high-level functions to implement hwclock > logic, but it has to be done in easy to review incremental way. It > means small patches. I have added it to my todo list. I would like to make other needed changes first before starting to refactor, if that is okay with you? >> Mr. Zak, could you please tell me how to proceed on these changes? >> Should they all be implemented as Mr. Kerola wrote them? >> Do you want to tweak the code, or do you want me to resubmit a >> single patch, or the entire series? > > You don't have to resend all, just fixed (updated) patches only. Or > ideally create your own git repository somewhere (e.g. at github) and > send pull request (url to the repository) only. Changes made as requested. Repository created at GitHub: https://github.com/jwpi/util-linux git@xxxxxxxxxx:jwpi/util-linux.git https://github.com/jwpi/util-linux.git I also sent a pull request to you via GitHub. > > Please, try to compose smaller patches next time, for example --get > is relatively independent change. Okay, sorry. > > Karel > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
