On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:22:59PM -0500, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:45 AM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 10:10, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42:54AM -0500, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at
On 01/29/2014 07:22 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:45 AM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
On 27 January 2014 10:10, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42:54AM -0500, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Daniel P.
On 27 January 2014 10:10, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42:54AM -0500, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
berra...@redhat.comwrote:
Periodically I've seen people submit big coding style cleanups to Nova
code.
Periodically I've seen people submit big coding style cleanups to Nova
code. These are typically all good ideas / beneficial, however, I have
rarely (perhaps even never?) seen the changes accompanied by new hacking
check rules.
The problem with not having a hacking check added *in the same
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.comwrote:
Periodically I've seen people submit big coding style cleanups to Nova
code. These are typically all good ideas / beneficial, however, I have
rarely (perhaps even never?) seen the changes accompanied by new hacking
