On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Markus Seeber <markus.seeber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
I tested them myself for a couple of days, and they are present in the github repo, which has been used by several people to build and test jack1.
My original plan was to compare the .o files generated before and after uncrustify, but I realized that this is not so simple.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
