diff for duplicates of <20120414054401.GC19802@1wt.eu> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 7e59fc3..c1dd078 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:18:33AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and > >> criticizing it is heresy. > > -> > Close. ?Not everyone. ?For example, you do not think the process is +> > Close. Not everyone. For example, you do not think the process is > > perfect. > > So you think the process is *perfect*? I would have expected @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ a bug report, they'll do this job themselves and in the mean time they'll probably provide you with the fix. > > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's -> > worth. ?Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an +> > worth. Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an > > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a need for a certain > > audience. @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ more stable than mainline for some workloads, which was a bit problematic, especially when these kernels had to be rebased onto newer versions and some patches had to be dropped at the risk of losing some stability fixes. -> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. ?For example, I hear +> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. For example, I hear > > Fedora has a kernel that they maintain well for a different audience, > > using different rules. > diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 5ed7ccc..224962b 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -9,9 +9,23 @@ "ref\020120413230525.GA13995@burratino\0" "ref\0CAMP44s0OdVBTwVtCoru-xvB=LVtO56jgku7X-0a7mUz1=iVCzw@mail.gmail.com\0" "From\0Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>\0" - "Subject\0[ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review\0" + "Subject\0Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review\0" "Date\0Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:44:01 +0200\0" - "To\0ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org\0" + "To\0Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>\0" + "Cc\0Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>" + Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> + Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> + Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> + Sergio Correia <lists@uece.net> + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + stable@vger.kernel.org + torvalds@linux-foundation.org + akpm@linux-foundation.org + alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk + linux-wireless Mailing List <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org> + Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com> + ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org <ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net> + " John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:18:33AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n" @@ -25,7 +39,7 @@ "> >> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and\n" "> >> criticizing it is heresy.\n" "> >\n" - "> > Close. ?Not everyone. ?For example, you do not think the process is\n" + "> > Close. \302\240Not everyone. \302\240For example, you do not think the process is\n" "> > perfect.\n" "> \n" "> So you think the process is *perfect*? I would have expected\n" @@ -60,7 +74,7 @@ "probably provide you with the fix.\n" "\n" "> > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's\n" - "> > worth. ?Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an\n" + "> > worth. \302\240Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an\n" "> > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a need for a certain\n" "> > audience.\n" "\n" @@ -72,7 +86,7 @@ "especially when these kernels had to be rebased onto newer versions and\n" "some patches had to be dropped at the risk of losing some stability fixes.\n" "\n" - "> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. ?For example, I hear\n" + "> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. \302\240For example, I hear\n" "> > Fedora has a kernel that they maintain well for a different audience,\n" "> > using different rules.\n" "> \n" @@ -102,4 +116,4 @@ "\n" Willy -c2670391dd69a5cbf157442efb214a32f610e81a910377803cae5ed8955bccac +05d55d30b6ee522c6f66442beda6f38f7f2d55664d6a8afc41418e6c366388bd
diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt index 7e59fc3..e9c38be 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N2/1.txt @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:18:33AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and > >> criticizing it is heresy. > > -> > Close. ?Not everyone. ?For example, you do not think the process is +> > Close. �Not everyone. �For example, you do not think the process is > > perfect. > > So you think the process is *perfect*? I would have expected @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ a bug report, they'll do this job themselves and in the mean time they'll probably provide you with the fix. > > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's -> > worth. ?Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an +> > worth. �Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an > > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a need for a certain > > audience. @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ more stable than mainline for some workloads, which was a bit problematic, especially when these kernels had to be rebased onto newer versions and some patches had to be dropped at the risk of losing some stability fixes. -> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. ?For example, I hear +> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. �For example, I hear > > Fedora has a kernel that they maintain well for a different audience, > > using different rules. > diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 5ed7ccc..f2d8096 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -9,9 +9,23 @@ "ref\020120413230525.GA13995@burratino\0" "ref\0CAMP44s0OdVBTwVtCoru-xvB=LVtO56jgku7X-0a7mUz1=iVCzw@mail.gmail.com\0" "From\0Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>\0" - "Subject\0[ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review\0" + "Subject\0Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review\0" "Date\0Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:44:01 +0200\0" - "To\0ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org\0" + "To\0Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>\0" + "Cc\0Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>" + Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> + Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> + Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> + Sergio Correia <lists@uece.net> + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + stable@vger.kernel.org + torvalds@linux-foundation.org + akpm@linux-foundation.org + alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk + linux-wireless Mailing List <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org> + Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com> + ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org <ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net> + " John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:18:33AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n" @@ -25,7 +39,7 @@ "> >> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and\n" "> >> criticizing it is heresy.\n" "> >\n" - "> > Close. ?Not everyone. ?For example, you do not think the process is\n" + "> > Close. \303\257\302\277\302\275Not everyone. \303\257\302\277\302\275For example, you do not think the process is\n" "> > perfect.\n" "> \n" "> So you think the process is *perfect*? I would have expected\n" @@ -60,7 +74,7 @@ "probably provide you with the fix.\n" "\n" "> > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's\n" - "> > worth. ?Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an\n" + "> > worth. \303\257\302\277\302\275Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an\n" "> > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a need for a certain\n" "> > audience.\n" "\n" @@ -72,7 +86,7 @@ "especially when these kernels had to be rebased onto newer versions and\n" "some patches had to be dropped at the risk of losing some stability fixes.\n" "\n" - "> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. ?For example, I hear\n" + "> > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. \303\257\302\277\302\275For example, I hear\n" "> > Fedora has a kernel that they maintain well for a different audience,\n" "> > using different rules.\n" "> \n" @@ -102,4 +116,4 @@ "\n" Willy -c2670391dd69a5cbf157442efb214a32f610e81a910377803cae5ed8955bccac +971b00e771fca91cd111ab13e08f77cd1426f3ceac7481d6ffff0bee577de103
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.