On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:24:30PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
And all that data is completely irrelevant for the reason I mentioned
again and again.
Now that we have the data, and that it goes your way,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:11:01AM +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com
wrote:
Patches of yours broke the build, you have a strong opinion on the
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:24:30PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
And all that data is completely irrelevant for the reason I mentioned
again and again.
Now that we have the data, and that it goes your way, yes you can say
it's irrelevant ;) What if instead, it turned out only f22 was
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Christophe Fergeau
cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com
wrote:
Patches of yours broke the build, you have a strong opinion on
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com
wrote:
Patches of yours broke the build, you have a strong opinion on the right way
to fix it, in such situations I usually go the extra mile to
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:43:15PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
I really don't see the point of evaluating possible but unlinkely[1]
impact on any distro. As I said, we give distros enough time and that
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:41:45PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
The answer was that magnitude of ugliness is irrelevant. Surely you
know that this is not anything objective. To me a single #ifdef is
ugly
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:43:15PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
I really don't see the point of evaluating possible but unlinkely[1]
impact on any distro. As I said, we give distros enough time and that
should be more than enough upstream could do. i-e these exact details
are
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:41:45PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
The answer was that magnitude of ugliness is irrelevant. Surely you
know that this is not anything objective. To me a single #ifdef is
ugly enough but seems it's not for you so how do you expect either of
us to convince
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 07:00:36PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com
wrote:
but you haven't brought
anything forward to support that ugly hack statement in this specific
case,
#ifdef based solution is going to be
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 07:00:36PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com
wrote:
but you haven't brought
anything forward to support that ugly
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 12:42:23PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
Honestly, this is a very weird attitude, rather than trying to
come with hard facts, you prefer having some kind of poll and make an
arbitary uninformed decision.
I regret having to resort to some sort of poll as well
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 12:42:23PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
Honestly, this is a very weird attitude, rather than trying to
come with hard facts, you prefer having some kind of poll and make an
arbitary
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
Hi all,
Christophe pointed out that this and the previous patch binds API that
was added an year ago:
commit:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
Hi all,
Christophe pointed out that this and the previous patch binds API that
was added an year ago:
commit: 03e0e79e07622496522609741734c2fdcacb5bf2
Author: Nehal J Wani nehaljw.k...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jun 24
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
Hi all,
Christophe pointed out that this and the previous patch
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:37:43PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
Also keeping in mind that it makes very little
sense to upgrade libvirt-glib and not libvirt since libvirt doesn't
break any ABI/API.
Generally speaking, there could be security issues, critical bugs in
Boxes which
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 03:37:43PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
Also keeping in mind that it makes very little
sense to upgrade libvirt-glib and not libvirt since libvirt doesn't
break any ABI/API.
Hi all,
Christophe pointed out that this and the previous patch binds API that
was added an year ago:
commit: 03e0e79e07622496522609741734c2fdcacb5bf2
Author: Nehal J Wani nehaljw.k...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jun 24 02:31:49 2014 +0530
net-dhcp-leases: Implement the public APIs
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
zeesha...@gnome.org wrote:
---
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-network.c | 55
+++
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-network.h | 4 +++
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject.sym | 2 ++
3 files changed, 61
---
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-network.c | 55 +++
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-network.h | 4 +++
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject.sym | 2 ++
3 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
diff --git a/libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-network.c
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:17:37PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
---
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-network.c | 55
+++
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject-network.h | 4 +++
libvirt-gobject/libvirt-gobject.sym | 2 ++
3 files changed, 61
23 matches
Mail list logo
