On 2018-02-26 21:42, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 08:49:18PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 01:45:15PM +0100, Romain Porte wrote: >>> This new patchset mainly removes any references to 'risky' addresses, >>> but uses the 'all' addresses instead. This reflects the name of the >>> chosen '-a' option that is already present in i2cdetect. >>> >>> Changes from previous version: >>> >>> - Use 'all_addrs' name instead of 'risky_addr' >>> - Remove 'risky' mentions in man pages >>> - Remove 'risky' mentions in commits >>> >>> Please review. >> >> Well, I like the change and visually reviewed the code. From that: >> >> Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Hopefully, I'll have some time later to actually test the code and >> upgrade to "Reviewed-by"... Peter seemed happy, too. However, I'd like >> to get some response from Jean. > > Or let's try to offload stuff from Jean: Peter, if you'd have time to test > this code and donate a tag, I can push it to the i2c-tools repo. I can offer a Reviewed-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> but testing is a bit more work and I'm currently swamped... The only thing I see is that it could be a single commit. I don't see the point of splitting up "real" code from code for help text and from man page updates, and the intermediate steps make little sense to me. But this "complaint" is a very minor issue and there might even exist some precedent for splitting, I wouldn't know. Or care for that matter... Cheers, Peter
