From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 28879 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2023 03:14:10 -0000
Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 30 Apr 2023 03:14:10 -0000
Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Sat Apr 29 23:12:48 -0400 2023
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706;
	t=1682824237;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:  in-reply-to:in-reply-to;
	bh=2ZMLEyZ6WyrSP71JAgLbIgaVUHP2+uLmaJC92KCGJVM=;
	b=zn5q3syjMvWM73i6bR4jB6cJb+p/7YzKS8VaEWzkFtJA1nh86CXsLLRP2XMHzUGCp+TxpU
	nzEFqsIBs/3VF4hypyMS3/W9W9YPUk+bUtxo2zAnXDPFeFy9ctBkPx9JFsXP4NUwrH1c+2
	ndfICGK0+0cSRYQUFIRNxBzWV9/k564=
Received: 
	by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 47e1c141 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6CD9EC4EFCD1E88C168FDDC61F0D2C60@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 05:12:34 +0200
From: qwx@sciops.net
To: 9front@9front.org
In-Reply-To: <1E91A12F12C601E2DE1A3099207ADE0C@smtp.pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: ORM over XMPP property reduce/map markup-based browser-aware interface 
Subject: Re: [9front] displayport thinkpad x230 external monitor black screen
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed Apr 26 05:39:14 +0200 2023, unobe@cpan.org wrote:
> Of the issues you brought up, I was certain about how to fix the 'i =
> 1;' -> 'break;', but less certain of how to match the surrounding code
> in all cases.  The for loops spacing was easy enough, and the added
> space at the end of a for loop that was unneeded (i.e., hunk @@
> -2319,7, +2363,7 @@).
> 
> However, the shift operators I saw have both styles even within the
> same block.  In some cases there were surrounding spaces, and in
> others there weren't (e.g., hunk @@-2219,46 +2300,37 @@).  I don't
> want to delay the push of the patch needlessly, but also don't want to
> create disturbances in the Force by not catching the ones you noticed.
> So I'd prefer you to fixup as you see fit.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Romano

I did a bunch of bikeshedding, more than enough, and just commited
this.  It wouldn't have been terrible to push it as it was when you
sent it originally, like I said I only had minor comments on style --
so, bikeshedding.  You'll find plenty of examples of differences in
style in the tree, the point is to just not help form any mutinies of
deviated preverts who use a significantly different style clashing
with everything else (but not even the case here).

Anyway, thanks again for your work!

Cheers,
qwx