On 13-01-08 11:59 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> I noticed this hadn't been applied yet, and was wondering if you were
> still planning on resubmitting this patch.
Yeah, I'd definitely like to. It's just not bubbled back up to the top
of the TODO list again yet. Hopefully very soon.
Cheers,
b.
On 12/12/2012 01:19 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 07:05 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> On 12-12-11 06:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Thanks!
>> NP. Had it just lying around here anyway. :-)
>>
>>> Comment should now mention 4 rules.
>> Doh! Missed that in the patch port. Updated in my
On 12/11/2012 07:05 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On 12-12-11 06:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Thanks!
> NP. Had it just lying around here anyway. :-)
>
>> Comment should now mention 4 rules.
> Doh! Missed that in the patch port. Updated in my local copy (which I
> will of course resend once al
On 12-12-11 06:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> Thanks!
NP. Had it just lying around here anyway. :-)
> Comment should now mention 4 rules.
Doh! Missed that in the patch port. Updated in my local copy (which I
will of course resend once all of the initial review is done).
>> +/* exempt mu
On 12/11/2012 03:54 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Per the request on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657918
> please find attached a patch that should address the issue.
Thanks!
>
> I'm not subscribed to this list though (I know, it's pretty rude, but
> my e-mail traffic is
Hi,
Per the request on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657918
please find attached a patch that should address the issue.
I'm not subscribed to this list though (I know, it's pretty rude, but
my e-mail traffic is already too heavy to add another list to it), so
if you could either CC
