Re: nth match

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Torsten Luettgert wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I understand Patrick wanted to integrate nth and random
> into a new statistics match. That's fine with me, but why
> was nth and random removed from pom without any replacement,
> i.e. the new statistics match?
> 
> You're just ripping out functionality based on something which
> will probably appear at some undetermined time in the future.

I did neither "rip something out", as the match was never part
of anything but a mostly random crap collection, nor is the
time undetermined, it will go in 2.6.18. In fact it is queued
for upstream submission sometime this weekend.

> That's no good style, sorry. Good style would be to first write
> the new match, adding it, giving it time to mature and marking
> the old stuff as obsolescent, then at some time removing it.

You're free to grab one of the many releases of patch-o-matic
that still contain the nth match and use that. I certainly
won't let trivial patches bitrot in patch-o-matic. Unlike the
kernel, patch-o-matic never made any promises about backwards
compatibility, support or anything else. You may also have
noticed that it didn't even compile with current kernels.

> (P.S.: sorry if this appears twice. I was so pissed off at the
> time that I forgot to use the correct sender address)

If you're so pissed off, how about you maintain a version until
2.6.18 is released? Feel free to set up a repository and send
me the URL to be included in the distibuted sources.list.