Re: [spice-common] Some steps toward quic_tmpl.c and quic_rgb_tmpl.c 'unification'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hey,

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 07:21:25AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > 
> > Any more thoughts/reviews on this series?
> > 
> > Christophe
> > 
> 
> I asked to have a test and you said is not worth.
> I asked to split the series in different ones and you said is not worth.
> For me a single "is not worth" is a self nack.
> So... why are you asking for though?

Ah, sounds like a misunderstanding then :) Yes I could resend these
patches as several separate series, but I tried to argue that the series
as a whole is not that complicated/scary, and could be reviewed as is.
I was expecting some pushback if you felt strongly with having separate
series :) Of course I can resend the trivial bits separately, but then
the less trivial ones (but still not very complicated ;) will be resent
as is too.

Regarding the test case, I wrote one (gave a link in one of the emails),
but it was so limited that I was not sure it was so useful to have. But
I can insert it in the series, sure.

Sounds like it was a good thing I asked what's next ;)

Christophe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]