[vlc-devel] [PATCH] xcb: as we require version 1.3, let's at least test in configure for it too.

jpd at videolan.org jpd at videolan.org
Mon Jun 22 09:35:23 CEST 2009

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 01:50:18AM +0200, Rafa??l Carr?? wrote:
> I think cleartext patches are a big enough and sufficient requirement :P

If the sender decides to sign the patch, that implies a request to
verify. If the verification fails, then what? If he didn't mean to have
the verification honoured, then there shouldn't have been a signature to
begin with.

Thus, no applying patches under a bad signature, regardless of cause.

Why am I telling you this? I don't sign my email, you do.

More information about the vlc-devel mailing list