On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:54:02PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 11:49:25AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > > > > On 10/1/19 11:25 AM, Ján Tomko wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:59:07PM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:12:58AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > Reviewed-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > and safe for freeze > > > > > > > > > > This is not a bugfix, it can wait. > > > > > > Also, there is an ongoing discussion about using g_autofree once we > > > start depending on gnulib, so I don't see a point in trying to convert > > > code to the macro that will soon be obsolete. > > > > Huh. Guess I'll stop sending those VIR_AUTO* patches all around then. I'll > > wait for the gnulib equivalent, if there will be any. > > NB, glib != gnulib :-) > > gnulib is the POSIX portability layer we're trying to eliminate. > > glib is the higher level library we're trying to adopt. > > The new approach will be more or less identical just different > naming convention. So, I guess, reviewing the following would also be kinda pointless given the circumstances, wouldn't it? https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-September/msg01452.html Erik -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
