On 06/16/2014 04:16 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
On 06/09/2014 09:29 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On 06/09/2014 04:18 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
On 06/09/2014 07:18 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On 06/03/2014 04:14 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
Bump. I'll make it easy. This is a multiple choice response form.
Hi,
See below. What is the reason for the INLINE macro in spice-protocol?
It looks like isn't used anywhere in the spice-protocol package.
If some other spice components depend on it: can it please be moved to a
private spice header?
thanks,
Gerd
Forwarded Message
From:
On 06/17/2014 11:45 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
See below. What is the reason for the INLINE macro in spice-protocol?
It looks like isn't used anywhere in the spice-protocol package.
If some other spice components depend on it: can it please be moved to a
private spice header?
thanks,
On 06/17/2014 03:24 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On 06/16/2014 04:16 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
On 06/09/2014 09:29 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On 06/09/2014 04:18 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
On 06/09/2014 07:18 AM, Alon Levy wrote:
On 06/03/2014 04:14 PM, David Mansfield wrote:
Bump. I'll make it easy.
SPICE_PROXY used to accept URI without scheme, falling back on
http/3128. This is a regression introduced with 5dcab09ac
---
gtk/spice-uri.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gtk/spice-uri.c b/gtk/spice-uri.c
index cf6e71b..82aefdb 100644
--- a/gtk/spice-uri.c
