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@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Thu Mar 31 20:15:01 2016
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2016 - 20:15:01 EEST