On 06/22/2010 11:08 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 11:37 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> On 06/19/2010 11:24 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>>
0001 - #547
>>>
>>> Nack. Please update contrib/sssd.spec.in to require the correct minimum
>>> collection version. Ot
On 06/21/2010 11:37 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 06/19/2010 11:24 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>
>>> 0001 - #547
>>>
>>
>> Nack. Please update contrib/sssd.spec.in to require the correct minimum
>> collection version. Otherwise it looks fine. (But I'm not sure if we
>> want to i
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/19/2010 11:24 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>
>> 0001 - #547
>>
>
> Nack. Please update contrib/sssd.spec.in to require the correct minimum
> collection version. Otherwise it looks fine. (But I'm not sure if we
> want to include this in 1.2.x or hold it for 1.3.x;
On 06/19/2010 11:24 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
> 0001 - #547
Nack. Please update contrib/sssd.spec.in to require the correct minimum
collection version. Otherwise it looks fine. (But I'm not sure if we
want to include this in 1.2.x or hold it for 1.3.x; I'm leaning towards
the latter)
> 0002 - memo
0001 - #547
0002 - memory leaks found in the unit test while testing 0001
Patches are independent.
Question: Should we run Coverity against the unit tests too?
I think we should because errors in the unit test most likely obscure
the errors in the code they test.
I was about to open a ticket on t
