On 5/20/20 2:13 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/05/2020 01.06, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/19/20 5:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:13:07AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/05/2020 01.06, John Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/19/20 5:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 07:06:40PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 5/19/20 5:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth
On 20/05/2020 01.06, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 5/19/20 5:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 07/04/2020
On 5/19/20 5:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hello,
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:56:36PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Following Markus thread on deprecating
On 5/15/20 6:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
>>> (machines) [1] and the effort done to
On 15/05/20 12:51, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> If a qtest is feasible, yes, I think we should require one for new
>> devices.
> qtest is not feasible, at least not for all kinds of devices. You can't
> talk to usb devices for example, and changing that effectively requires
> writing
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
> > (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in
> > the replies [2],
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
> > (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in
> > the replies [2],
On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
> (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in
> the replies [2], and the various acceptance tests added, is it
> feasible to require for
Hello,
Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code
(machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in
the replies [2], and the various acceptance tests added, is it
feasible to require for the next release that each new device/machine
is provided a test
12 matches
Mail list logo