On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> At Sat, 5 Dec 2015 21:05:29 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAB7nPqSXcdM-5nFWDf8zuKmW8j_ooE6zYRqYQasp0fjKxKDX2A@mail.gmail.com>
>>> > Regarding the patch, I
>>> > would tend to think that we should just reject it and try to cruft
>>> > something that could be more pluggable if there is really a need.
>>> > Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Honestly saying, I feel similarly with you:p I personally will do
>>> something like the following for the original objective.
>>
>> Are there other opinions? The -1 team is in majority at the end of this thread..
>
> So, marking the patch as rejected? Any objections?
Done so. Alea jacta est, as one guy 2000 years ago would have said.
--
Michael