Hello Devin/Mauro,
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mche...@redhat.com wrote:
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
Hello,
Please PULL from http://kernellabs.com/hg/~dheitmueller/ngene2 for the
following:
Hi Devin,
As agreed via IRC with you and stoth, I'm applying all
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
Hello,
Please PULL from http://kernellabs.com/hg/~dheitmueller/ngene2 for the
following:
Hi Devin,
As agreed via IRC with you and stoth, I'm applying all patches, except
for the ones that are currently creating unused files at the building
system. Let's apply
Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
unused code to separate files where it might actually be useful to
someone else in the future, I delete it entirely because Mauro's
scripts mangle the patches when
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
unused code to separate files where it might actually be useful to
someone else in the future, I delete it entirely because Mauro's
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
unused code to separate files where it might actually be useful to
someone else in the future, I delete it entirely because Mauro's
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mche...@redhat.com wrote:
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
Ok, here's take two of the PULL request issued yesterday. It's
basically the same as yesterday, but except instead of moving the
unused code to separate files where it might actually be
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
And as I explained to you, there were *extraordinarily* good reasons -
because the code will be enabled in the future, the code definitely
didn't belong in ngene-core.c, and because I didn't want the code to
get
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mche...@redhat.com wrote:
Devin Heitmueller wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
And as I explained to you, there were *extraordinarily* good reasons -
because the code will be enabled in the future, the code
That said, if getting even trivial changes like moving a few functions
around are going to be met with such resistance and come at an
enormous cost, it's *very* tempting to just host it locally and not
submit it upstream at all.
Mauro,
It makes no sense to have Kernel Labs work out of tree.
Steven Toth wrote:
That said, if getting even trivial changes like moving a few functions
around are going to be met with such resistance and come at an
enormous cost, it's *very* tempting to just host it locally and not
submit it upstream at all.
Mauro,
It makes no sense to have Kernel
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Steven Toth wrote:
That said, if getting even trivial changes like moving a few functions
around are going to be met with such resistance and come at an
enormous cost, it's *very* tempting to just host it locally and not
submit it upstream at all.
Mauro,
It
11 matches
Mail list logo
