On (13/10/15 15:39), Michal Židek wrote:
>On 10/13/2015 01:43 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>
>>
>>On 10/13/2015 01:28 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>On (13/10/15 12:36), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/13/2015 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (12/10/15 14:06), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 13:05), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>On 10/12/2015 07:32 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:06), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 13:05), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/12/2015 07:32
On 10/12/2015 05:43 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 06:10:50PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 10/11/2015 06:03 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2833
We can't search of overridden name/id in LDAP when using local
overrides. These patches fix this for
On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:06), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On 10/12/2015 05:43 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 06:10:50PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 10/11/2015 06:03 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2833
We can't search of overridden name/id in LDAP when using local
overrides. These patches fix this for
On 10/13/2015 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:06), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/12/2015 01:52 PM,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:08:22PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >I don't like overriding opt_name and opt_id here, the caller of
> >check_cache() does not expect that those values change (especially
> >because opt_name is declared const in the header). Additionally I'm not
>
> The values won't
On 10/13/2015 01:43 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/13/2015 01:28 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (13/10/15 12:36), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/13/2015 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:45),
On 10/13/2015 01:28 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (13/10/15 12:36), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/13/2015 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM,
On 10/12/2015 10:31 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 03:14:52PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/09/2015 02:10 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:34:30PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/02/2015 07:44 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (01/10/15 15:41), Michal Židek
On (13/10/15 12:36), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>On 10/13/2015 12:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (13/10/15 10:10), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>On 10/13/2015 09:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (12/10/15 14:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>On 10/12/2015 02:36 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On
On 10/12/2015 11:37 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 03:55:17PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
On 10/04/2015 09:39 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Finally, because I'm a lazy reviewer, I would prefer:
- a patch that converts 0177 to DFL, with a comment around the macro
definition
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 10:31 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 03:14:52PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> >>On 10/09/2015 02:10 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:34:30PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> On
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 04:19:22PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> > On 10/12/2015 10:31 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 03:14:52PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> > >>On 10/09/2015 02:10 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >
On 10/12/2015 07:50 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/10/15 20:02), Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/09/2015 02:05 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I
On 10/09/2015 08:02 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/09/2015 02:05 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (09/10/15 13:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:25:33PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 10/06/2015 11:21 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I personally don't care about unsigned vs
Hi everyone,
we just discussed 'function wrapper' topic offline.
I agree that it is not ideal to add new parameter to the function. And I
agree that in languages like C, we have return value model.
On the other hand, we have clean code on our minds. So I think that
wrappers like:
# int
18 matches
Mail list logo