2013/5/2 Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 05/02/2013 07:56 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 05/02/2013 07:09 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote: >>> 2013/5/2 Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> On 05/01/2013 12:44 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote: >>>>> --- >>>>> src/esx/esx_vi_generator.py | 430 ++++++++++++------------------------------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 118 insertions(+), 312 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> My python is weak, so I reviewed this by comparing the generated files >>>> before and after this patch; added comments in the generated code are >>>> nice, but there are also some added frees. Are these additions >>>> intentional to fix a leak, or are they representing a bug in your patch? >>>> If intentional, then this is 1.0.5 material if you improve the commit >>>> message and push in time; if accidental and no real bug is being fixed, >>>> then a v2 should wait until after the release. >>> >>> The changes in the generated files you're seeing here are intended, >>> but they are coming from another patch that I pushed yesterday: >>> >>> http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=4e650435edeb2870c907721ea8b11380256bf6a7 >>> >>> This refactoring patch should not change the output at all. And it >>> didn't in my test. >> >> Then that must be an effect of me grabbing my snapshot at the wrong >> point when swapping between incremental builds. I'll try again, and >> sorry for the hassle that my confusion caused... > > Indeed; once I grabbed the correct diff, I see no change in the output > files. And now that the release is out, it's no longer a risk of > violating freeze. > > ACK. Thanks, pushed. -- Matthias Bolte http://photron.blogspot.com -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list