Re: print_npx_status_word

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:21:16 +0200
> From: "Baars, M.J." <mjbaars1977.gdb@gmail.com>
> 
> On 04/16/2011 04:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 03:46:09PM +0200, Baars, M.J. wrote:
> >> On 04/16/2011 10:24 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >>>> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:08:48 +0200
> >>>> From: "Baars, M.J."<mjbaars1977.gdb@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Tom,
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe this is the format you requested?
> >>> No!  This is a .tar.gz.  Proper diffs don't come as a .tar.gz.
> >> Oops... did I remove one of your entries in the ChangeLog? :)
> > If you want a patch to be committed, eventually you're going to have
> > to say why.  What's the goal of the patch?
> When you look at the code in question more closely, you will see that it 
> will present the content of the status word in more detail than the 
> original function,

Which isn't necessarily a good thing.

> > Also, why on earth are you messing about with old changelog entries?
> >
> The old function can thus be seen as obsolete, and should be removed 
> from the old log entries.

Seems you totally fail to understand what ChangeLogs are for.