On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:47:08AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:45:37PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > So I did a biset, and this is the result:
> > > > $ git bisect good
> > > > 0e64a0c982c06a6b8f5e2a7f29e
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:01:41AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > Please look at the patch I attached to the bug report. There is
> > other code that is not equivalent. It's in comment #17:
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13780#c17
>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:45:37PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > So I did a biset, and this is the result:
> > > > $ git bisect good
> > > > 0e64a0c982c06a6b8f5e2a7f29eb108fdf257b2f is first bad
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:45:37PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > So I did a biset, and this is the result:
> > > $ git bisect good
> > > 0e64a0c982c06a6b8f5e2a7f29eb108fdf257b2f is first bad commit
>
> 0e64a0c has this cleanup, which isn't eq
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So I did a biset, and this is the result:
> > $ git bisect good
> > 0e64a0c982c06a6b8f5e2a7f29eb108fdf257b2f is first bad commit
> > commit 0e64a0c982c06a6b8f5e2a7f29eb108fdf257b2f
> > Author: Dave Jones
> > Date: Wed Feb 4 14:37:50 2009 -0500
>
On Tuesday 08 September 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:12:14AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday 07 September 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 08:11:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > This message has been generated automatically as
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 02:27:29PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> This bug has been abandoned as far as I know since there has been no
> response from the reporter in three weeks to post the latest failure
> (which was then 2.6.31-rc5).
I've been busy with other things. I'll try to take a lo
On Sunday 06 September 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regr
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
17 matches
Mail list logo
