From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS autolearn=no version=3.2.5 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:02:25 +0200 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: ALT Linux Team development discussions Message-ID: <20101125220225.GA24496@shutemov.name> References: <1289923002-14132-1-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name> <1289923002-14132-9-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name> <20101122054916.GB22001@altlinux.org> <4CEA6347.10803@rambler.ru> <20101123004827.GD26538@altlinux.org> <20101123005622.GA7637@altlinux.org> <20101123013853.GE26538@altlinux.org> <20101123064225.GA5789@shutemov.name> <20101123115004.GA3908@altlinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101123115004.GA3908@altlinux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 8/8] set.c: update copyright notice X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:02:30 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:50:04PM +0300, Alexey Tourbin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:42:25AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:38:53AM +0300, Alexey Tourbin wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:56:22AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant > > > GNU criteria are somewhat controversial. > > Just stop discussing this. I've drop it, before 'git push'. > > Anyway, I wonder why you ever THOUGHT you should fix my code. As if it's > something wrong with the code (which it isn't). I think it passed many > times a scrutiny (before it's been committed), and it looks GOOD. No, it doesn't. Mixing code and declarations looks really ugly. Other than that, probably, it's my style preferences. I like kernel code style. > > Also, I payed a lot of time to write COMMENTS and explain why exactly > the code is supposed to work (the comments have been re-edited many times > before I felt them enough convincing). Comments are nice. Thanks. > Is there really something wrong > with the code, except for -std=gnu99 issues? See my patchset about optimization of rpmsetcmp(). -- Kirill A. Shutemov