On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 08:20:58PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 10:17 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > Hey all-
> > A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing
> > patches I
> > would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually
> > consider
On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 10:17 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> Hey all-
> A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing
> patches I
> would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually
> considered safe
> because they were part of the EXPERIMENTAL api set. John M. aske
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:17:23AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> Hey all-
> A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing patches
> I
> would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually considered safe
> because they were part of the EXPERIMENTAL api set. John M
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:17:23AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> Hey all-
> A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing patches
> I
> would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually considered safe
> because they were part of the EXPERIMENTAL api set. John M
Hey all-
A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing patches I
would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually considered safe
because they were part of the EXPERIMENTAL api set. John M. asked me then what
I might do to improve the situation, and the follow
5 matches
Mail list logo
