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?
--
Michael
