On 2 Apr 2013, at 19:39, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 13:42, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>> I believe this option should work too. But it is really a trade off between
>> simplicity and the more complicated serialPersistentFields. I'm ok with
>> either.
>>
>> I just wanted to mention, tha
On 02/04/2013 13:42, Chris Hegarty wrote:
I believe this option should work too. But it is really a trade off
between simplicity and the more complicated serialPersistentFields.
I'm ok with either.
I just wanted to mention, that I inadvertently removed this field as
superfluous cleanup when
On 04/02/2013 12:38 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 31/03/2013 15:16, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Thanks for taking this Mark. It was my change that introduced this
incompatibility.
The source changes look fine to me. In fact, the removal of
scope_ifname_set was not necessary for the original fix, just "ba
On 31/03/2013 15:16, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Thanks for taking this Mark. It was my change that introduced this
incompatibility.
The source changes look fine to me. In fact, the removal of scope_ifname_set was not
necessary for the original fix, just "bad" clean up. Also, there is no need to
res
Thanks for taking this Mark. It was my change that introduced this
incompatibility.
The source changes look fine to me. In fact, the removal of scope_ifname_set
was not necessary for the original fix, just "bad" clean up. Also, there is no
need to reset its default value where declared.
The te
