On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not think it is worth doing this change starting from maint, so
> I've dropped this one and a few others that did not apply to master
> and queued the remainder to 'pu'.
Thank you! I'll keep this in mind when choosing what to branch of
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:35:29PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Brian Gesiak wrote:
> > Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out!
>
> Etiquette on this list is to avoid top-posting [1].
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/11/111
>
A: Because it
Eric Sunshine writes:
> If you do re-roll, perhaps consider simplifying the commit messages.
> The patch itself states concisely and precisely what is being changed;
> the lengthy prose description doesn't really add anything (and makes
> more work for you and the reader of the message). It might
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Brian Gesiak wrote:
> Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out!
Etiquette on this list is to avoid top-posting [1].
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/11/111
> Would it be better if I rerolled the patches?
Junio may or may not make small fixes himse
Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out!
Would it be better if I rerolled the patches?
- Brian Gesiak
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brian Gesiak wrote:
>> xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their si
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brian Gesiak wrote:
> xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size.
> run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the
> size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated.
> Rearrgange them so they are in
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:22:00AM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:
> My apologies! I based my work off of maint, branching off of eea591.
>
> My reasoning was that Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that "a
> bugfix should be based on 'maint'". [1] Now that I think about it,
> this is probably not
My apologies! I based my work off of maint, branching off of eea591.
My reasoning was that Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that "a
bugfix should be based on 'maint'". [1] Now that I think about it,
this is probably not the kind of "bug" that statement had in mind.
Should I reroll the patch
Brian,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:33:42AM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:
> xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size.
> run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the
> size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated.
> Rearrgange them
xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size.
run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the
size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated.
Rearrgange them so they are in the correct order.
Signed-off-by: Brian Gesiak
---
builtin/a
10 matches
Mail list logo
