On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 06:43:59PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 01:39:58AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> RHEL6 requires 512MB, not 256 as per documentation: > >> > >> http://www.redhat.com/resourcelibrary/articles/articles-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-technology-capabilities-and-limit > >> > >> Thanks to Christophe Fergeau for pointing this one out as well. > >> > >> Pushed under trivial rule. > > > > NACK, this only addresses half of the review comments. > > The only other comment it doesn't address was "I'd also set > recommended to 1GB." which sounds like more a light suggestion and > since the recommended memory *is* already 1GB, I didn't see what I was > supposed to do. Please note the choice of words "address". Explaining why the change is not relevant is a way of addressing this comment. And the fact that you wrongly thought that it's already set to 1GB shows that the change was not so trivial. > > As this is the 3rd time in a row one of your 'pushed under trivial rule' > > patches need work, please think twice in the future before pushing > > something under this rule. > > As long as it doesn't break anything, things can always be improved. > No need to have long discussion about such small matters. It's not about having long discussions, it's just about getting code reviewed and right before pushing it. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpIbO8ngYb9C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
