On 6/13/19 2:33 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: >> Does this series add a syntax-check rule to prevent reversion back to >> older styles when new files are introduced? For example, I now have >> to >> rebase my pending incremental backup work on top of this, which adds >> new >> files, but without a syntax-check rule addition, I can't quickly >> identify which files I plan to add that need a tweak. > > Good point. I did not add a syntax check yet. In fact, this is not even > the complete patch series. The whole patch series is actually about 60 > patches, but I didn't want to flood the mailing list right away on my > first submission. So I just sent the first 20 or so in case people > wanted to split them up differently. I can try to add a syntax check to > include when I send the rest of the series. > >> >>> Reviewed-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> and pushed. >> Thus, it would be a nice followup patch for you to work on. >> > > Sure thing. In fact, if you're not done patching things, a syntax check would fire prematurely :) So it must be last in your series, but it's also nice knowing that there is more to come. If nothing else, you can test that applying the syntax check early flags things you still need to fix, and that applying it at the end of your work finds nothing wrong. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
