On 03/10/2016 00:05, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 11:16:49PM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
On 02/10/2016 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:51:41AM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
Explicitly state that FATE should pass, and code should work
for all rev
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 11:16:49PM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
>
>
> On 02/10/2016 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:51:41AM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
> >>Explicitly state that FATE should pass, and code should work
> >>for all reviewers who tested.
[...]
> >>-@item
On 02/10/2016 22:47, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:51:41AM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
Explicitly state that FATE should pass, and code should work
for all reviewers who tested.
Signed-off-by: Josh de Kock
---
doc/developer.texi | 91 ++
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:51:41AM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
> Explicitly state that FATE should pass, and code should work
> for all reviewers who tested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh de Kock
> ---
> doc/developer.texi | 91
> ++
> 1 file changed
On 10/1/2016 9:51 PM, Josh de Kock wrote:
> Explicitly state that FATE should pass, and code should work
> for all reviewers who tested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh de Kock
> ---
> doc/developer.texi | 91
> ++
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+),
