On 03/31/2016 09:34 AM, Filipe Coelho wrote: > In my opinion we should get back to the original jack1 code before > uncrustify messed up things. > And then try to generate a clean patch. I'm willing to do the clean > patch if Paul reverts uncrustify changes. > @Paul: is that ok? After having a look at the patch myself and the commit history, this seems to be a reasonable approach but there is still the problem, that commits after the uncrustify step may depend on that one and might need to be rebased? @Paul Have the uncrustify changes from c758cdf4f6e959b92683f2dba6ce8617ac4f0a83 been tested independently from the toposort patch? Best regards Markus _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
