Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 03/12/2010 01:21 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi Hans,
As we've agreed that the idea is to allow multiple people to commit at
v4l-utils,
today, I've added 3 commits at v4l-utils tree (2 keycode-related and 1
is .gitignore
stuff). One of the reasons were
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:29:46 -0300
Mauro Carvalho Chehab mche...@redhat.com wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 03/12/2010 01:21 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi Hans,
As we've agreed that the idea is to allow multiple people to commit at
v4l-utils,
today, I've added 3 commits
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 03/12/2010 01:21 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi Hans,
As we've agreed that the idea is to allow multiple people to commit at
v4l-utils,
today, I've added 3 commits at v4l-utils tree (2 keycode-related and 1
is .gitignore
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Yes. The new objects and the touched files got a different group ownership
after git push. I had to manually fix them at the server.
I added a hook that will likely fix it. As I have a few more changes to
Hi,
On 03/12/2010 08:29 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 03/12/2010 01:21 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hi Hans,
As we've agreed that the idea is to allow multiple people to commit at
v4l-utils,
today, I've added 3 commits at v4l-utils tree (2 keycode-related
Hi,
On 03/13/2010 02:24 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Please, don't upgrade the version yet just due to keytable, as I'm still
working on
more keytable patches, to handle the new uevent attributes (to match the IR
core patches
I posted earlier today).
Ok,
Note the main reason for the
Hi Hans,
As we've agreed that the idea is to allow multiple people to commit at
v4l-utils,
today, I've added 3 commits at v4l-utils tree (2 keycode-related and 1 is
.gitignore
stuff). One of the reasons were to test the viability for such commits.
I've temporarily enabled the same script that
