On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:47:14 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:55:33 +1000 David Seikel
> said:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:54:37 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel
> > > said:
> >
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:55:33 +1000 David Seikel said:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:54:37 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel
> > said:
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 11/03/1
I totally agree with raster.
We need to provide an unified api set for more users.
-Original Message-
From: "Carsten Haitzler"
To: "e";
Cc:
Sent: 2016-03-14 (월) 14:07:03
Subject: [E-devel] thinking ... eo_ -> efl_ ?
so now eo api and efl look the same... work the same. why keep eo ap
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:28:12 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:06:39 + Tom Hacohen
> said:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > As you may have noticed I reverted the patches regarding eo_add().
> > The reason for that is that following complaints (why didn't you
> > say
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:54:37 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel
> said:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:35:04 -0700 Cedric BAIL said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Carsten Haitzler
> > wrote:
> >> so now eo api and efl look the same... work the same. why keep eo api as
> >> eo_ ? why not just move it
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:29:10 -0700 Cedric BAIL said:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Carsten Haitzler
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:06:30 -0800 Cedric BAIL said:
> >> Oh, that's a massive mail !
> >
> > sorry - i'm brain dumping and trying to fill everyone in. i'm reaching out
> > for
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:27:15 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida
said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Carsten Haitzler
> wrote:
> > so now eo api and efl look the same... work the same. why keep eo api as
> > eo_ ? why not just move it into efl_ space :) i see no reason to keep it
> > separate. it
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:06:39 + Tom Hacohen said:
> Hey,
>
> As you may have noticed I reverted the patches regarding eo_add(). The
> reason for that is that following complaints (why didn't you say
> anything following my proposal and *before* I did all the work?!?!) I
> came up with a be
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:41:26 +1000 David Seikel said:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>
> > On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >>> On 03/03/16
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:06:30 -0800 Cedric BAIL said:
>> Oh, that's a massive mail !
>
> sorry - i'm brain dumping and trying to fill everyone in. i'm reaching out for
> input and i want to at least express as much as possible for people t
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Carsten Haitzler
> wrote:
>> so now eo api and efl look the same... work the same. why keep eo api as eo_
>> ?
>> why not just move it into efl_ space :) i see no reason to keep it separate.
>> it
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:03:19 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
> > On 14/03/16 14:33, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Or we require GCC-extension, or we just use the uglier version IMO.
> >>
> >
> > Let me just start b
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 14/03/16 14:33, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
[snip]
>> Or we require GCC-extension, or we just use the uglier version IMO.
>>
>
> Let me just start by saying that clang also supports this GCC extension
> (just to clarify because I think
Hello EFL folks,
It's been a while since 1.17.0 was released. A number of bug fixes were
pushed in 1.17 branch since then. This must be a good time to release
another stable update.
I am planning to release 1.17.1 next Wednesday afternoon in GMT. (MAR.
23) If you have any more backports that need
On 14/03/16 14:33, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> On 14/03/16 11:23, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
>>> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>
>>> No objections but I'm not 100% sure what is the plan?
>>> Is it to have two versions of eo_add depending on #ifdef GCC,
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:33:32 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
> > On 14/03/16 11:23, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> >> Hi,
>
> [snip]
>
> >> No objections but I'm not 100% sure what is the plan?
> >> Is it to have two versions of eo_add
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:05:42 + Tom Hacohen
wrote:
> On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >>> On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 14/03/16 11:23, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
>> Hi,
[snip]
>> No objections but I'm not 100% sure what is the plan?
>> Is it to have two versions of eo_add depending on #ifdef GCC, like below?
>> - if not GCC, use a TLS stack and a macro eo_
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> so now eo api and efl look the same... work the same. why keep eo api as eo_ ?
> why not just move it into efl_ space :) i see no reason to keep it separate.
> it's just confusing. is what iw ant in eo_ or in efl_ ?
>
> either that or we m
2016-03-11 12:41 GMT+01:00 Carsten Haitzler :
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:57:43 + Tom Hacohen said:
>
>> On 11/03/16 09:36, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > On 11/03/16 03:14, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:12:49 +0100 Stefan Schmidt
>> >> said:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello
On 14/03/16 11:23, Jean-Philippe André wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14 March 2016 at 19:09, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>
>> On 11/03/16 15:06, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> As you may have noticed I reverted the patches regarding eo_add(). The
>>> reason for that is that following complaints (why didn't you
Hi,
On 14 March 2016 at 19:09, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 11/03/16 15:06, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > As you may have noticed I reverted the patches regarding eo_add(). The
> > reason for that is that following complaints (why didn't you say
> > anything following my proposal and *before* I
Hello.
On 07/03/16 16:30, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> What's actually required for this? Is it code-related or just
> infrastructure?
Its a mixture of things. Sometimes its code related sometimes you have
to find out why it only fails on Jenkins and not on your local host.
Some sort of detective
Hello.
Summary:
o Many Jenkins jobs had trouble since February. Last week I was able to
get most of them back into building so our reports are actually up to
date this week.
o The dropped coverage rate looks bad on a first view but I finally got
our coverage reports to take all files into accou
On 11/03/16 15:06, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> As you may have noticed I reverted the patches regarding eo_add(). The
> reason for that is that following complaints (why didn't you say
> anything following my proposal and *before* I did all the work?!?!) I
> came up with a better way to do it tha
On 11/03/16 20:54, David Seikel wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:28:19 + Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/16 16:23, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> On 03/03/16 10:22, Tom Hacohen wrote:
On 01/03/16 09:05, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The Eo syntax is going to be changing once more, a
27 matches
Mail list logo
