2017-04-14 13:10+0800, Paolo Bonzini:
> More important: did kvm-unit-test catch the bug?
It did; the bright side. :)
2017-04-14 13:10+0800, Paolo Bonzini:
> More important: did kvm-unit-test catch the bug?
It did; the bright side. :)
On 14/04/2017 00:39, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> I have introduced this bug when applying and simplifying Paolo's patch
> as we agreed on the list. The original was "x &= ~y; if (z) x |= y;".
>
> Here is the story of a bad workflow:
>
> A maintainer was already testing with the intended change,
On 14/04/2017 00:39, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> I have introduced this bug when applying and simplifying Paolo's patch
> as we agreed on the list. The original was "x &= ~y; if (z) x |= y;".
>
> Here is the story of a bad workflow:
>
> A maintainer was already testing with the intended change,
I have introduced this bug when applying and simplifying Paolo's patch
as we agreed on the list. The original was "x &= ~y; if (z) x |= y;".
Here is the story of a bad workflow:
A maintainer was already testing with the intended change, but it was
applied only to a testing repo on a
I have introduced this bug when applying and simplifying Paolo's patch
as we agreed on the list. The original was "x &= ~y; if (z) x |= y;".
Here is the story of a bad workflow:
A maintainer was already testing with the intended change, but it was
applied only to a testing repo on a
6 matches
Mail list logo
