This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/gerrit-log@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte gerrit-no-reply at lists.osmocom.orgPatch Set 4: (1 comment) https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/436/4/openbsc/src/libbsc/bsc_vty.c File openbsc/src/libbsc/bsc_vty.c: Line 2735: "Enable 11 bit RACH for EGPRS") > What is the reason to have ... (0|1) instead of the This is in general my fault. I would say all the original NITB code uses the (0|1) style in the VTY. The reason is quite simply that I was not familiar enough with a Cisco-style VTY before to inherently know the "no" is more standard language. What I dislike in terms of our VTY code is that the "no ..." approach means you have to write two functions with pretty much identical code, whereas the (0|1) style is less code to write. As we have code in both ways (and in the BSC/NITB plenty of 0|1 code), I wouldn't consider this a reason to reject the patch at all -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/436 To unsubscribe, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: I51357bec936c28a26ab9ff5d59e0e30ca3363297 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Project: openbsc Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Owner: bhargava_abhyankar <Bhargava.Abhyankar at radisys.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Holger Freyther <holger at freyther.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-Reviewer: Max <msuraev at sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Neels Hofmeyr <nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: bhargava_abhyankar <Bhargava.Abhyankar at radisys.com> Gerrit-HasComments: Yes