From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:25:37 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Michael Sokolov Cc: linux-galileo@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Message-ID: <20020320172537.GH3762@opus.bloom.county> References: <0203201704.AA10152@ivan.Harhan.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <0203201704.AA10152@ivan.Harhan.ORG> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:04:35AM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote: > Tom Rini wrote: > > > Sure there is, for it to be accepted. > > Wait a minute, why am I even talking to you? Because you enjoy our conversations? :) > Mark said he is the responsible > maintainer and promised to push my patch in a few days if there is no > consensus by then, and I think I'll just wait a few days and then ask > him to stick to his word. And then you'll have to go and improve the patch anyhow, if you're going to stick to your word. :) > (I'm willing to bet $50 that in the next few days there will be no > consensus nor will anyone else offer a counterpatch.) > > > And would you please make it > > versus the _galileo tree > > Sorry, no, that would be a step backward and we need to move forward. How is that a step backward? All of the current galileo work is in that tree. And a quick diff of the enet drivers in the two trees shows a good deal of differences, many of which aren't just cosmetic. Isn't it more 'natural' to update the most up to date file? -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/