Re: [PATCH] libbb: rename two fields in ioloop_state, no logic changes

On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 at 19:24, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> El El mar, 21 abr 2026 a las 16:54, Roberto A. Foglietta <[email protected]> escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 at 12:23, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia via busybox
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Victor,
>> >
>> > This patch is already included in git. I assume you did not mean to send it ?
>> >
>>
>> My interpretation of sending that patch is: the git.busybox.net
>> changed during a period of downtime, therefore some people did not
>> accept that
>
>
> It is simpler than that. He’s sending a patch that is not his own, and is taken from git HEAD. Probably a mistake with git format-patch or similar.
>

Irrelevant, because he sent a patch of his own as well:

[PATCH] tc: make CBQ support optional and isolate legacy code

That patch qualifies him as a contributor and when a contributor
validates a patch that might be questionable (not because the author
but because git downtime) then he supports that patch as well.

Therefore it is irrelevant the aim (especially the post-hoc
explanation), the two actions lead to the same result because the
interpretation is uniquely the same.

Best regards, R-
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox