From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:53:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] First Patch on TFRC-SP. Copy base files from TFRC Message-Id: <20091013185302.GA3491@del.dom.local> List-Id: References: <4AD4B677.4000308@embedded.ufcg.edu.br> In-Reply-To: <4AD4B677.4000308@embedded.ufcg.edu.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: dccp@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:25:48PM -0300, Ivo Calado wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 15:21, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:12:14PM -0300, Ivo Calado wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 15:06, Jarek Poplawski wro= te: > >> > Ivo Calado wrote, On 10/13/2009 07:18 PM: > >> > > >> > ... > >> >> Following the rule #8 in Documentation/SubmittingPatches the patch = is ... > >> 8) E-mail size. > >> > >> ... > >> Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some > >> maintainers. =A0If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 40 kB in size, ... > > Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some > > maintainers. =A0If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size, ... > Hi Jarek, > strange! I'm using the current DCCP test tree, branch dccp. > Am I correct in use these rules? Hmm... Looks like a fresh change in Linus' (and net-next) tree. So, there is a hard legal question: which tree rules should be respected here? I guess you're one of a few respecting these rules ;-) Well done! Best regards, Jarek P. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] First Patch on TFRC-SP. Copy base files from TFRC Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:53:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20091013185302.GA3491@del.dom.local> References: <4AD4B677.4000308@embedded.ufcg.edu.br> <4AD4C19E.5060608@gmail.com> <20091013182144.GA3338@del.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: dccp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ivo Calado Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f227.google.com ([209.85.220.227]:46759 "EHLO mail-fx0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934072AbZJMSxt (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:53:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:25:48PM -0300, Ivo Calado wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 15:21, Jarek Poplawski wr= ote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:12:14PM -0300, Ivo Calado wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 15:06, Jarek Poplawski = wrote: > >> > Ivo Calado wrote, On 10/13/2009 07:18 PM: > >> > > >> > ... > >> >> Following the rule #8 in Documentation/SubmittingPatches the pa= tch is =2E.. > >> 8) E-mail size. > >> > >> ... > >> Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some > >> maintainers. =A0If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 40 kB in size= , =2E.. > > Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some > > maintainers. =A0If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size= , =2E.. > Hi Jarek, > strange! I'm using the current DCCP test tree, branch dccp. > Am I correct in use these rules? Hmm... Looks like a fresh change in Linus' (and net-next) tree. So, there is a hard legal question: which tree rules should be respected here? I guess you're one of a few respecting these rules ;-) Well done! Best regards, Jarek P.