On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:09:33 -0700
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:23:53 -0700
> > Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >
> > > Previoiusly, we had a mess of logic that was repeated with one of the
> > > repeats negated. Not only
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:23:53 -0700
> Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
> > Previoiusly, we had a mess of logic that was repeated with one of the
> > repeats negated. Not only was this unnecisaraly confusing, but it
> > segfaulted and one of the neg
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:23:53 -0700
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Previoiusly, we had a mess of logic that was repeated with one of the
> repeats negated. Not only was this unnecisaraly confusing, but it
> segfaulted and one of the negations was wrong. This cleans the whole mess
> up and should fix bu
Previoiusly, we had a mess of logic that was repeated with one of the
repeats negated. Not only was this unnecisaraly confusing, but it
segfaulted and one of the negations was wrong. This cleans the whole mess
up and should fix bug #79725.
---
src/data-device.c | 30 -