-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Dmitri, it's a very simple change that will be very easy to resolve with
'git rebase' and 'git mergetool'.
There's no reason that a complete fix should be held back for the
convenience of any one developer.
Also, no. The upstream SSSD repository is one-way. To remove it, we
would have to apply a negative diff and commit that. We're not going to
remove a solid fix because it might inconvenience you.
On 09/16/2009 02:28 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
This is great, thank you for finding it.
But this will really mess up my merges.
Can it be undone?
Also I have a ticket open to explicitly return to this part of code and
sort things out with valgrind.
Thanks for finding the answer and cause of the problem, it will make the
but would it possible next time to ask me first or at least wait for my
or ack before pushing?
I have not fell off the planet at least yet...
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 09/16/2009 11:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 09/16/2009 11:52 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> On 09/16/2009 05:35 PM, Martin Nagy wrote:
>>>> Obviously, valgrind was producing warnings precisely because of
> the bug
>>>> that Jakub's patch fixes. Therefore it was right to complain. I
>>>> the right thing to do right now is to remove all the explicit
>>>> initializations and the comment about valgrind complaints.
>>> That is absolutely correct, I even verified this with valgrind. New
>>> patch attached.
>> sssd-devel mailing list
> Pushed to master.
> sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel mailing list
Looking to carve out IT costs?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----