On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:54:59PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 21:52 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:03PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 00:37 -0500, Simo So
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 06:28:30PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:48:50AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 15:08 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > Patch #3 is more tricky to test. Feel fr
On 01/08/2013 05:13 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 00:37 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
While looking at some code my eye fell on the fact that sdap_reinit.c
was including sysdb_private.h
That's a no-no on its own, you don't get to use private headers
liberally, or I wouldn't have marked
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:48:50AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 15:08 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > Patch #3 is more tricky to test. Feel free to push patches #1 and #2 to
> > > master if it would ease your reb
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 15:08 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > Patch #3 is more tricky to test. Feel free to push patches #1 and #2 to
> > master if it would ease your rebasing if I'm not done testing the last
> > one soon.
>
> Squash in
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:35:38AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> Patch #3 is more tricky to test. Feel free to push patches #1 and #2 to
> master if it would ease your rebasing if I'm not done testing the last
> one soon.
Squash in the attached fix and you'll get an ack even for patch #3 :-)
>From
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:54:59PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 21:52 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:03PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 00:37 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > While looking at some code my eye fell on the fact
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 21:52 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:03PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 00:37 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > While looking at some code my eye fell on the fact that sdap_reinit.c
> > > was including sysdb_private.h
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:13:03PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 00:37 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > While looking at some code my eye fell on the fact that sdap_reinit.c
> > was including sysdb_private.h
> >
> > That's a no-no on its own, you don't get to use private headers
> >
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 00:37 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> While looking at some code my eye fell on the fact that sdap_reinit.c
> was including sysdb_private.h
>
> That's a no-no on its own, you don't get to use private headers
> liberally, or I wouldn't have marked them "private" in the first place!
While looking at some code my eye fell on the fact that sdap_reinit.c
was including sysdb_private.h
That's a no-no on its own, you don't get to use private headers
liberally, or I wouldn't have marked them "private" in the first place!
However besides the abuse of the private headers I found also
11 matches
Mail list logo