As if heavens select good time to add a bit of controversy, I've just
got reply from upstream for the patch I just couldn't drop silently in
my cleanup (and also it was kind of poke at them if they actually
Well, will be a good test case for how well git cvsimport works ;-).
And they're there and reasonably responsive. There're two other patches
which I did clean up from my branch (as they are not directly related to
real wince functionality, so should not be subject of maintenance for
Note 1: these are reverse patches (i.e. once forward patch was applied
to upstream, I applied reverse patch to bring it back to upstream).
Note 2: if you'll submit dba53b839e, note that hex conversion for
PSH_WATERMARK is wrong. Which should be another hint why any changes to
upstream should be minimal, if not avoided.
> 2) maybe you should let the comment in the code, even with a FIXME
Well, I'm doing mindful, attentive cleanup, not just dumb cut&pasting.
I cannot pledge to have scrutinized every changed line (there're 100Kb
after all), but that's essentially what I do for every small hunk -
either get rid of a change line in it, or justify it's necessity (and
that's b@tchy job, can't believe I volunteered for that ;-)). In this
case I verified that the value seems correct (using multi-score method
described in yesterday's mail), and as that apparently can be the only
question for a simple define, removed a mark.