On 10/10/19 7:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: > 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. > I wasn't aware that PMM wanted to avoid non-standard tags; I consider them to be for human use, but I can change that behavior. Peter, I'll change it to an ACK (as suggested by Kevin) is that's OK by you. --js -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
