On 18 February 2014 15:32, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Quick experiment to gauge the likelihood of conflicts: I reran
coccinelle on v1.7.0, then attempted to merge the result into master. I
got *two* conflicts. I backed out with git-merge --abort, then merged
with git-merge -s
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 18 February 2014 15:32, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Quick experiment to gauge the likelihood of conflicts: I reran
coccinelle on v1.7.0, then attempted to merge the result into master. I
got *two* conflicts. I backed out with
On 21 February 2014 11:49, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
PATCH 1/2 is a bug fix, please apply it directly, or tell me to resubmit
via -trivial.
Yes, please send that via trivial.
thanks
-- PMM
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 21 February 2014 11:49, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
PATCH 1/2 is a bug fix, please apply it directly, or tell me to resubmit
via -trivial.
Yes, please send that via trivial.
Done thanks
Quick experiment to gauge the likelihood of conflicts: I reran
coccinelle on v1.7.0, then attempted to merge the result into master. I
got *two* conflicts. I backed out with git-merge --abort, then merged
with git-merge -s recursive -X ours g_new.old to drop both conflicting
hunks, and the
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 3 February 2014 08:40, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 31 January 2014 15:53, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
186 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 415 deletions(-)
No
On 13 February 2014 16:36, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
I started splitting the patch, and it bores me to tears.
Peter, any chance for applying as is, with all conflicting hunks
summarily dropped?
I'm afraid that sounds like too much manual effort on my part.
thanks
-- PMM
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 13 February 2014 16:36, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
I started splitting the patch, and it bores me to tears.
Peter, any chance for applying as is, with all conflicting hunks
summarily dropped?
I'm afraid that sounds like too
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 3 February 2014 08:40, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 31 January 2014 15:53, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
186 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 415 deletions(-)
No
Il 04/02/2014 17:52, Markus Armbruster ha scritto:
Unfortunately, our use of macros confuses coccinelle sufficiently to
miss quite a few instances of the patterns. Do we want this change
anyway?
Yes, we already use g_new anyway.
Paolo
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 31 January 2014 15:53, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
PATCH 1/2 fixes a bug found by compiling the original PATCH 2/2.
Evidence for my claim that PATCH 2/2 lets the compiler catch more type
errors :)
Markus Armbruster (2):
On 3 February 2014 08:40, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes:
On 31 January 2014 15:53, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
186 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 415 deletions(-)
No objection in principle, but I think this is going
PATCH 1/2 fixes a bug found by compiling the original PATCH 2/2.
Evidence for my claim that PATCH 2/2 lets the compiler catch more type
errors :)
Markus Armbruster (2):
qga: Fix memory allocation pasto
Use g_new() friends where that makes obvious sense
aio-posix.c|
On 31 January 2014 15:53, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote:
PATCH 1/2 fixes a bug found by compiling the original PATCH 2/2.
Evidence for my claim that PATCH 2/2 lets the compiler catch more type
errors :)
Markus Armbruster (2):
qga: Fix memory allocation pasto
Use g_new()
14 matches
Mail list logo