This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
Checking and testing all valid transitions wasn't trivial, chances
are this will need broader testing to become more stable.
This is a transition table as suggest
This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
Checking and testing all valid transitions wasn't trivial, chances
are this will need broader testing to become more stable.
This is a transition table as suggest
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:55:25 +
Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Luiz Capitulino
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:25:41 -0300
> > Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >
> >> This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
> >> doing it separately will allow for
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:25:41 -0300
> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
>> This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
>> doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
>>
>> Checking and testing all valid
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:25:41 -0300
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
> doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
>
> Checking and testing all valid transitions wasn't trivial, chances
> are this will need broader
This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
Checking and testing all valid transitions wasn't trivial, chances
are this will need broader testing to become more stable.
This is a transition table as suggest
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:42:15 +0200
Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>
> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:55:12 +0200
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> >> On 2011-09-06 15:14, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >> > This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
> >> > doing it separate
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:55:12 +0200
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-09-06 15:14, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>> > This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
>> > doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
>> >
>> > Checking and
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:55:12 +0200
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-09-06 15:14, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
> > doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
> >
> > Checking and testing all valid transitions was
On 2011-09-06 15:14, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
> doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
>
> Checking and testing all valid transitions wasn't trivial, chances
> are this will need broader testing to beco
This commit could have been folded with the previous one, however
doing it separately will allow for easy bisect and revert if needed.
Checking and testing all valid transitions wasn't trivial, chances
are this will need broader testing to become more stable.
Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino
---
11 matches
Mail list logo
