Re: print_npx_status_word

Baars, M.J.
2011-04-16T16:21:39Z

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,
> 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.

Regards,
Michael.