2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]



make[1]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
  CHK     include/asm-i386/asm_offsets.h
  CHK     include/linux/compile.h
  LD      drivers/scsi/scsi_mod.o
  CC      drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.o
drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c:32:2: #error Please convert me to
Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt
drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c: In function `adpt_install_hba':
drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c:977: warning: passing arg 2 of `request_irq' from
incompatible pointer type
drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c: In function `adpt_scsi_to_i2o':
drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c:2118: error: structure has no member named
`address'
drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c: At top level:
drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.c:165: warning: `dptids' defined but not used
make[2]: *** [drivers/scsi/dpt_i2o.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [drivers/scsi] Error 2
make: *** [drivers] Error 2



:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Christoph Hellwig]

Looks like someone needs to fix it, right?  Preferrably someone
who owns the hardware..

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --]



While I'm anything but a qualified coder I'm willing to test code on
this bugger or other help where soundly possible.


Thus spake Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org):

> Looks like someone needs to fix it, right?  Preferrably someone
> who owns the hardware..
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Tomas Szepe]

> [Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net]
> 
> While I'm anything but a qualified coder I'm willing to test code on
> this bugger or other help where soundly possible.

Would you people please stop replying above the original messages?

One could say this evil (pioneered by certain silly mail clients btw)
has been spreading like plague around here lately.

Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
(REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
1855).  It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.  And
it's embarrassing: it makes you look like a newbie.  Change your mailer if
necessary, if the one you have makes it hard to do reply-after-quoting.
I know some people like to quote the entire message they are replying to,
so they put their reply right at the top so people won't give up after the
first page of quoted material.  Don't do it.  It's annoying.  Just learn to
stop quoting everything.  No-one wants to see it all anyway (list archives
allow people to see everything if they missed it).  You're not helping
yourself anyway, as you're more likely to be ignored if you
reply-before-quoting.

-- 
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>

Posting format

[bill davidsen]

A one or two line summary at the top of an article often saves the
reader from reading the entire thing.

In article <20030723225333.GC16244@louise.pinerecords.com>,
Tomas Szepe  <szepe@pinerecords.com> wrote:
| > [Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net]
| > 
| > While I'm anything but a qualified coder I'm willing to test code on
| > this bugger or other help where soundly possible.
| 
| Would you people please stop replying above the original messages?
| 
| One could say this evil (pioneered by certain silly mail clients btw)
| has been spreading like plague around here lately.
| 
| Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
| (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
| 1855).  It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.

What does it say about changing the topic without changing the header?

|                                                                   And
| it's embarrassing: it makes you look like a newbie.  Change your mailer if
| necessary, if the one you have makes it hard to do reply-after-quoting.
| I know some people like to quote the entire message they are replying to,
| so they put their reply right at the top so people won't give up after the
| first page of quoted material.  Don't do it.  It's annoying.  Just learn to
| stop quoting everything.  No-one wants to see it all anyway (list archives
| allow people to see everything if they missed it).  You're not helping
| yourself anyway, as you're more likely to be ignored if you
| reply-before-quoting.

Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
hard to read *when context is needed*.

Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
examples to make it.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: Posting format

[Tomas Szepe]

> [davidsen@tmr.com]
> 
> | Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
> | (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
> | 1855).  It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.
> 
> What does it say about changing the topic without changing the header?

Yup, sorry about that.

> Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
> examples to make it.

Annoyance meter shows: murder
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105873583008314&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105768377328478&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105880921003608&w=2

Hedrick flavor:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105765755000781&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105898862213443&w=2

-- 
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>

Re: Posting format

[Steven Cole]

On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 17:32, bill davidsen wrote:
> A one or two line summary at the top of an article often saves the
> reader from reading the entire thing.
> 
> In article <20030723225333.GC16244@louise.pinerecords.com>,
> Tomas Szepe  <szepe@pinerecords.com> wrote:
[snipped]
> | 
> | Would you people please stop replying above the original messages?
> | 
> | One could say this evil (pioneered by certain silly mail clients btw)
> | has been spreading like plague around here lately.
> | 
> | Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
> | (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
> | 1855).  It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.
> 
[snipped]
> 
> |                                                                   And
> | it's embarrassing: it makes you look like a newbie.  Change your mailer if
> | necessary, if the one you have makes it hard to do reply-after-quoting.
> | I know some people like to quote the entire message they are replying to,
> | so they put their reply right at the top so people won't give up after the
> | first page of quoted material.  Don't do it.  It's annoying.  Just learn to
> | stop quoting everything.  No-one wants to see it all anyway (list archives
> | allow people to see everything if they missed it).  You're not helping
> | yourself anyway, as you're more likely to be ignored if you
> | reply-before-quoting.
> 
> Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
> context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
> of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
> hard to read *when context is needed*.
> 
> Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
> examples to make it.

More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
where everyone replies at the bottom.

-------------------------------
To: hackerlist@webe.hackers.org
From: Delta <delta@cando.com>
Subj: foo.c does not compile, what to do?

Charlie wrote:
> Able wrote:
> > Baker wrote:
> > > Able wrote:
> > > > Baker wrote:
> > > > > Able wrote:
> > > > > > My driver foo.c does not compile. What can I do?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Able
> > > > > > 
> > > > > It hasn't been ported yet.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Baker
> > > > > 
> > > > I really really need this.
> > > > 
> > > > Able
> > > > 
> > > Well then, either fix it yourself or find someone who can.
> > > 
> > > Baker
> > > 
> > But I can't fix it myself.  I don't know how.
> > 
> > Able
> > 
> I think Delta worked on this last year.  Delta, can you help?
> 
> Charlie
> 
Yeah I looked at that thing and ran away screaming.  Good luck.

Delta
-------------

Now, look at the same conversation where Able replies at the top.

-------------------------------
To: hackerlist@webe.hackers.org
From: Delta <delta@cando.com>
Subj: foo.c does not compile, what to do?

Charlie wrote:
> Able wrote:
> > But I can't fix it myself.  I don't know how.
> >
> > Able
> >
> > Baker wrote:
> > > Able wrote:
> > > > I really really need this.
> > > >
> > > > Able
> > > >
> > > > Baker wrote:
> > > > > Able wrote:
> > > > > > My driver foo.c does not compile. What can I do?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Able
> > > > > > 
> > > > > It hasn't been ported yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Baker
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > Well then, either fix it yourself or find someone who can.
> > > 
> > > Baker
> > > 
> > 
> I think Delta worked on this last year.  Delta, can you help?
> 
> Charlie
> 
Yeah I looked at that thing and ran away screaming.  Good luck.

Delta
-------------

The result is a tangled mess.  Untangling that mess wastes time.

Replying at the top wastes people's time trying to understand the
conversation.

For a theoretical discussion of why mixing top and bottom agglutination
is wrong, Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" has a chapter on how
differing languages build up trees.  Some add from the left, some from
the right, but arbitrarily mixing the two in the same sentence either
results in an ambiguity or what he calls "fruit salad".

Please reply at the bottom.

Steven

Re: Posting format

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3246 bytes --]




Thus spake Steven Cole (elenstev@mesatop.com):

> On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 17:32, bill davidsen wrote:
> > A one or two line summary at the top of an article often saves the
> > reader from reading the entire thing.
> > 
> > In article <20030723225333.GC16244@louise.pinerecords.com>,
> > Tomas Szepe  <szepe@pinerecords.com> wrote:
> [snipped]
> > | 
> > | Would you people please stop replying above the original messages?
> > | 
> > | One could say this evil (pioneered by certain silly mail clients btw)
> > | has been spreading like plague around here lately.
> > | 
> > | Quoting the lkml FAQ ->
> > | (REG) And please reply after the quoted text, not before it (as per RFC
> > | 1855).  It's very confusing to see a reply before the quoted context.
> > 
> [snipped]
> > 
> > |                                                                   And
> > | it's embarrassing: it makes you look like a newbie.  Change your mailer if
> > | necessary, if the one you have makes it hard to do reply-after-quoting.
> > | I know some people like to quote the entire message they are replying to,
> > | so they put their reply right at the top so people won't give up after the
> > | first page of quoted material.  Don't do it.  It's annoying.  Just learn to
> > | stop quoting everything.  No-one wants to see it all anyway (list archives
> > | allow people to see everything if they missed it).  You're not helping
> > | yourself anyway, as you're more likely to be ignored if you
> > | reply-before-quoting.
> > 
> > Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
> > context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
> > of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
> > hard to read *when context is needed*.
> > 
> > Your point is good, I think you could have picked a number of better
> > examples to make it.
> 
> More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
> results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
> where everyone replies at the bottom.


On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
conversation is at.  You could read just the top post and go from there.
For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
scroll up.  When the next post comes in they just read the top post
again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
figure out what/when/where.

Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
as well instead of the GUI oriented.


:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Posting format

[Tomas Szepe]

> [Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net]
> 
> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at.

So how do you context-quote when replying at the top?

Original text:

	Argument A.
	Argument B.

Reply:

	Reply intro text.

	Reaction A.
	> Argument A.

	Reaction B.
	> Argument B.

I don't think so.  Awkward (mixing directions) and confusing.

> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up.

Ever actually tried doing that?  IMHO it's not half as practical and
natural as reading from the top down.  (You have to keep scrolling,
searching for block starts.)

-- 
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>

Re: Posting format

[Steven Cole]

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:03, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > [Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net]
> > 
> > On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> > easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> > without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> > conversation is at.
> 
> So how do you context-quote when replying at the top?
> 
> Original text:
> 
> 	Argument A.
> 	Argument B.
> 
> Reply:
> 
> 	Reply intro text.
> 
> 	Reaction A.
> 	> Argument A.
> 
> 	Reaction B.
> 	> Argument B.
> 
> I don't think so.  Awkward (mixing directions) and confusing.
> 
> > For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> > scroll up.
> 
> Ever actually tried doing that?  IMHO it's not half as practical and
> natural as reading from the top down.  (You have to keep scrolling,
> searching for block starts.)

I think Tomas has just hit upon why top posting is fundamentally wrong.

Indo-European languages read left to right, Semitic languages read right
to left, and some Oriental languages read top to bottom, but no human
languages I'm aware of read bottom to top.  

Consider a Cafe sign:

C
a
f
e

That is readable.  How about:

e
f
a
C

Not very readable unless you spend extra processing time to think about
it. Reading bottom to top is counter-intuitive and wastes time. Speaking
of which, apologies to all who feel they've wasted time by reading this.

Hmm, it looks like you top-posters out there are in good company. 
Marcelo seems to be taking the lead.  Grumble.

Steven

Re: Posting format

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2988 bytes --]


Thus spake Steven Cole (elenstev@mesatop.com):

> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:03, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > [Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net]
> > > 
> > > On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> > > easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> > > without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> > > conversation is at.
> > 
> > So how do you context-quote when replying at the top?
> > 
> > Original text:
> > 
> > 	Argument A.
> > 	Argument B.
> > 
> > Reply:
> > 
> > 	Reply intro text.
> > 
> > 	Reaction A.
> > 	> Argument A.
> > 
> > 	Reaction B.
> > 	> Argument B.
> > 
> > I don't think so.  Awkward (mixing directions) and confusing.
> > 
> > > For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> > > scroll up.
> > 
> > Ever actually tried doing that?  IMHO it's not half as practical and
> > natural as reading from the top down.  (You have to keep scrolling,
> > searching for block starts.)
> 
> I think Tomas has just hit upon why top posting is fundamentally wrong.
> 
> Indo-European languages read left to right, Semitic languages read right
> to left, and some Oriental languages read top to bottom, but no human
> languages I'm aware of read bottom to top.  
> 
> Consider a Cafe sign:
> 
> C
> a
> f
> e
> 
> That is readable.  How about:
> 
> e
> f
> a
> C
> 
> Not very readable unless you spend extra processing time to think about
> it. Reading bottom to top is counter-intuitive and wastes time. Speaking
> of which, apologies to all who feel they've wasted time by reading this.
> 
> Hmm, it looks like you top-posters out there are in good company. 
> Marcelo seems to be taking the lead.  Grumble.
> 


I'm not saying you should write your paragraphs backwards such as your
Cafe sign.  It's more of an organizational thing than an order of
reading thing.  When I sort my ToDo list I put the things most important
on top, when I sort my mail, I put the things I need to read on top,
etc.  This way the most important piece (the newest comment in this
case) is on top and I don't have to go digging for it.

Not everyone puts inline responses and they're not always needed.  If
you place some a good idea is one a co-worker uses:

  See inline comments below.

4 works, 1 line.  Tells us there is content he added mixed in.
Otherwise I don't have to waste time and effort digging through the
rants, flames and fluff wondering "is there something down here?"...







:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Posting format

[Steven Cole]

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 11:15, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> Thus spake Steven Cole (elenstev@mesatop.com):
> 
> > On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 10:03, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > > [Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net]
[snipped]
> > > 
> > > > For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> > > > scroll up.
> > > 
> > > Ever actually tried doing that?  IMHO it's not half as practical and
> > > natural as reading from the top down.  (You have to keep scrolling,
> > > searching for block starts.)
> > 
> > I think Tomas has just hit upon why top posting is fundamentally wrong.
> > 
> > Indo-European languages read left to right, Semitic languages read right
> > to left, and some Oriental languages read top to bottom, but no human
> > languages I'm aware of read bottom to top.  
> > 
[more snippage]
> 
> I'm not saying you should write your paragraphs backwards such as your
> Cafe sign.  It's more of an organizational thing than an order of
> reading thing.  When I sort my ToDo list I put the things most important
> on top, when I sort my mail, I put the things I need to read on top,
> etc.  This way the most important piece (the newest comment in this
> case) is on top and I don't have to go digging for it.

Reverse chronological lists are another example of where top
agglutination provides convenience. But the lower, earlier part remains
and doesn't get snipped.  It doesn't seem to be the same as a multi-way
conversation where earlier parts become irrelevant to later parts.

> 
> Not everyone puts inline responses and they're not always needed.  If
> you place some a good idea is one a co-worker uses:
> 
>   See inline comments below.
> 
> 4 works, 1 line.  Tells us there is content he added mixed in.
> Otherwise I don't have to waste time and effort digging through the
> rants, flames and fluff wondering "is there something down here?"...

The ease of tacking on your comment to the top means that you will not
be motivated to snip all the "rants, flames and fluff" below, so all
that (usually) irrelevant flotsam gets sent over and over again.

At home, I'm on a 56k dialup, and getting the days worth of lkml
messages takes a while.  Cutting down on unnecessary verbage which can
easily be retrieved if needed is definitely appreciated.  

Steven

Re: Posting format

[Bas Mevissen]

Robert L. Harris wrote:

(snip a lot)

> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.

That is to let you start snipping all unrelated quoted text. :-(

Bas.

Re: Posting format

[Steven Cole]

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 09:47, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> 
> Thus spake Steven Cole (elenstev@mesatop.com):

[snippage]
> > 
> > More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
> > results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
> > where everyone replies at the bottom.
> 
> 
> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at.  You could read just the top post and go from there.
> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up.  When the next post comes in they just read the top post
> again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
> figure out what/when/where.
> 
> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.
> 
> 
> :wq!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B

Using a consistent agglutination policy results in more easily
understandable conversations.  You've done a good job advocating top
posting, but until recently the linux-kernel norm was bottom posting.

The mix of the two is what is being objected to.  Standards exist for
good reasons, and Tomas pointed out RFC 1855 and the lkml FAQ.

Please reply at the bottom.  Thanks.

Steven

Re: Posting format

[Bill Davidsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1792 bytes --]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Robert L. Harris wrote:


> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at.  You could read just the top post and go from there.
> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up.  When the next post comes in they just read the top post
> again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
> figure out what/when/where.
> 
> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.

I tried to make the point that top posting is useful when (and only when)
it is short and does not require the context of the previous posts, it
saves the reader time to have it all up front.

Example 1:
  Subject: 2.6.0-test2-ac1 OOPS with ZIP and DVD

  Appropriate top post:
    Fixed in 2.6.0-test2-ac2

  Why:
    Topic is dead, problem over, casual reader spends no more time on it


Example 2:
  Subject: Odd O(1) behaviour with SCSI tape and serial PPP

  Appropriate top post:
    The measurements Jonas requested appear below interspersed with his
    questions.

  Why:
    If you want details you won't miss this post, if you are only
    concerned with patches or discussion of root cause you might skip
    this one.


A short top post takes the place of the Summary header most folks can't
generate or see. Used properly it's a benefit, used as the examples Thomas
posted it's disgusting.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: APPLICATION/PGP-SIGNATURE, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Posting format

[CaT]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:47:32AM -0400, Robert L. Harris wrote:
*51 lines of unnecessary quoting snipped*
> > More exposition regarding top vs bottom posting: Replying at the bottom
> > results in an easily parseable tree. Consider the following conversation
> > where everyone replies at the bottom.
> 
> On the other hand if everyone posted at the top it would be considerably
> easier reading for those who have been following the conversation
> without having to scroll down and figure out where comments and the
> conversation is at.  You could read just the top post and go from there.

That's why you snip your quoting appropriately.

> For those new to the conversation they can just start at the bottom and
> scroll up.  When the next post comes in they just read the top post

Or rather, scroll to somewhere near the bottom, scroll down some, scroll
up to the next message, scroll down some, scroll up, scroll down, etc.
All depends on how the replies were done. 

> again instead of scrolling down to the bottom or middle somewhere to
> figure out what/when/where.

People who know how to trim quoting appropriately make this a non-issue.
Generally the reply begins on the first visible page.

The other advantage is that going past the bits of relevant quoted text,
even just to quickly pass your eyes over them, gives you a nice reminder
of what is being replied to and makes the subject fresher in your mind.
It also helps clue you into what the sender is really replying to so that
there's (potentially) less misunderstanding.

> Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> as well instead of the GUI oriented.

I use mutt and vim. This is a non-point. The spacebar works. With vi
ndd works for quote removal (where n is the number of lines). For vim
you have shift-v to begin your selection and just move the cursor down
to where you want to cut. If the person you're replying to did their
job then you doing yours is simplicity in itself. If they don't then
it becomes more painful but it still is not difficult (or complex -
just takes a wee bit longer).

-- 
"How can I not love the Americans? They helped me with a flat tire the
other day," he said.
	- http://tinyurl.com/h6fo

Re: Posting format

[jw schultz]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:24:13AM +1000, CaT wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:47:32AM -0400, Robert L. Harris wrote:
[snip]
> > Using VI and Mutt, the cursor starts at the top not the bottom or
> > anywhere in the middle so there's and ease of use for CLI mail readers
> > as well instead of the GUI oriented.
> 
> I use mutt and vim. This is a non-point. The spacebar works. With vi
> ndd works for quote removal (where n is the number of lines). For vim
> you have shift-v to begin your selection and just move the cursor down
> to where you want to cut. If the person you're replying to did their
> job then you doing yours is simplicity in itself. If they don't then
> it becomes more painful but it still is not difficult (or complex -
> just takes a wee bit longer).

And if the quoting is FRC compliant (as above) both vim and
mutt's built-in pager will render the quotes in a succession
of colors according to depth making them even easier to
discern.  And if paragraph reformatting is needed due to
someone's misbehavior re long lines vim's autoindent will
preserve the quoting correctly.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

Re: Posting format

[Miles Bader]

jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws> writes:
> if the quoting is FRC compliant both vim and mutt's built-in pager
> will render the quotes in a succession of colors according to depth
> making them even easier to discern.  if paragraph reformatting is
> needed due to someone's misbehavior re long lines vim's autoindent
> will preserve the quoting correctly.

Gnus (in emacs) will do both of those things too.

It also has an option to hide quoted sections, replacing them with a
little button you can use to see the text (mutt can hide quoted text
too, but it leaves no indicator in its place, which makes the result
quite confusing).

-Miles
-- 
"Most attacks seem to take place at night, during a rainstorm, uphill,
 where four map sheets join."   -- Anon. British Officer in WW I

[OT] Re: Posting format

[Sean Neakums]

davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) writes:

> Seriously, you have a point, but his two liner did not require the
> context of the bulk of the post. There have been some far worse choices
> of top posting, and the main reason for not top posting is because it's
> hard to read *when context is needed*.

If context is not needed, it should be deleted.

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Alan Cox]

Nobody has ported this driver to 2.6 yet

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Samuel Flory]

Alan Cox wrote:

>Nobody has ported this driver to 2.6 yet
>
>  
>

  Acording to this bug adaptec isn't planning on doing so.
http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217

-- 
Once you have their hardware. Never give it back.
(The First Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory@rackable.com>

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Alan Cox]

On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 22:20, Samuel Flory wrote:
>   Acording to this bug adaptec isn't planning on doing so.
> http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217

Then I guess it won't be in 2.6.0 and Adaptec will catch up later. 
Depends how they define "stable" and what contracts they have with
whom to maintain it, if any.

Either way someone else can fix it if they want, or use the core
i2o drivers which should drive this hardware nowdays

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:17:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Either way someone else can fix it if they want, or use the core
> i2o drivers which should drive this hardware nowdays

So why is dpt_i2o still around then?  It's a horrible mess and much
much worse than i2o_scsi.

Re: 2.6.0-test1-ac3 still broken on Adaptec I2O

[Alan Cox]

On Iau, 2003-07-24 at 09:01, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:17:32PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Either way someone else can fix it if they want, or use the core
> > i2o drivers which should drive this hardware nowdays
> 
> So why is dpt_i2o still around then?  It's a horrible mess and much
> much worse than i2o_scsi.

Primarily because the i²o drivers didnt use to handle the dpt devices. They 
speak a slightly odd dialect of i²o and that tripped us up. I need to check
2.6 has all the 2.4 core i²o stuff in place. With that done then I think 
doing some testing and losing dpt_i2o is doable.

Alan