On 10/12/2016 05:19 PM, Pavel Grunt wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 10:13 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 06:57 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
When MainChannelClient was split to a separate file, the
responsibility
for incrementing this field was supposed to belong to the
Mai
On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 10:13 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 06:57 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When MainChannelClient was split to a separate file, the
> > > > responsibility
> > > > for incrementing this field was supposed to belong to the
>
>
> On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 06:57 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > When MainChannelClient was split to a separate file, the
> > > responsibility
> > > for incrementing this field was supposed to belong to the
> > > MainChannel
> > > function (main_channel_connect_semi_seamless()), b
On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 06:57 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> >
> > When MainChannelClient was split to a separate file, the
> > responsibility
> > for incrementing this field was supposed to belong to the
> > MainChannel
> > function (main_channel_connect_semi_seamless()), but by mistake it
>
>
> When MainChannelClient was split to a separate file, the responsibility
> for incrementing this field was supposed to belong to the MainChannel
> function (main_channel_connect_semi_seamless()), but by mistake it was
> incremented both there and in the client function
> (main_channel_client_co
When MainChannelClient was split to a separate file, the responsibility
for incrementing this field was supposed to belong to the MainChannel
function (main_channel_connect_semi_seamless()), but by mistake it was
incremented both there and in the client function
(main_channel_client_connect_semi_se
