On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 13:42:26 +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 10/10/19 1:26 PM, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 13:22:37 +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > On 10/10/19 12:43 AM, John Snow wrote: > > > > It's an old compatibility shim that just delegates to ide-cd or ide-hd. > > > > I'd like to refactor these some day, and getting rid of the super-object > > > > will make that easier. > > > > > > > > Either way, we don't need this. > > > > > > > > Libvirt-checked-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Peter made a comment regarding Laszlo's Regression-tested-by tag: > > > > > > [...] nobody else is using > > > this convention (there are exactly 0 instances of > > > "Regression-tested-by" in the project git log as far as > > > I can see), and so in practice people reading the commits > > > won't really know what you meant by it. Everybody else > > > on the project uses "Tested-by" to mean either of the > > > two cases you describe above, without distinction... > > > > > > It probably applies to 'Libvirt-checked-by' too. > > > > I certainly didn't test it. So feel free to drop that line altogether. > > But you reviewed it, can we use your 'Reviewed-by' instead? To be honest, I didn't really review the code nor the documentation. I actually reviewed only the idea itself in the context of integration with libvirt and that's why I didn't go for 'Reviewed-by:'. The gist of the citation above is that we should stick to well known tags with their well known meanings and I think that considering this a 'review' would be a stretch of the definiton. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
