> On 29 Nov 2018, at 18:23, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:50:47AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:23:17AM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: >>>>>> On 27 Nov 2018, at 15:38, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I'm not really asking how to use it, but it's very odd to have a >>>>>> patch >>>>>> adding a new dep without seeing any accompanying patches which need >>>>>> that >>>>>> dependency. >>>>> >>>>> You may want to look there: >>>>> https://github.com/c3d/spice/tree/smart-streaming. >>>>> I’m surprised you are not aware of this proposal. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying I'm unable to find any examples of how it's used. By >>>> looking at the patch sent to the mailing list, I have no idea if I >>>> should assume the instrumentation is going to be merged as is, if only a >>>> subset of it is intended to be submitted, if it's going to be modified, >>>> ... So yes I'm aware of your work, but I don't know for sure what's >>>> the plan for upstream. >>>> >>>> Christophe >>>> >>> >>> The plan is the same for downstream, downstream is mostly some former >>> release with some patches on top taken from newer upstream (like CVEs >>> and other important fixes), the only exception, as far as I know, are >>> some customer related not still integrated to upstream that will be >>> merged upstream when ready. >>> >>> Why should be different for this patch? >>> (Probably I didn't understand your concern) >> >> I don't really understand what you mean here, so I guess we are indeed >> not understanding each other. What I'm trying to say as that it's >> quite unusual to have a patch which is "Add a new dependency" without >> any accompanying patch making use of that new dependency. >> > > I think I was confused by the "upstream" and though that your concern > was related to some upstream/downstream difference. > >> For example, when Marc-André added the json-glib dependency ( >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/2018-August/045202.html >> ), we did not get first a patch adding the new dep and not doing >> anythingelse, and the rest of the series after this initial patch was >> merged. The addition of the new dep was sent at the same time as the >> patches which need json-glib. Your comment makes sense to me now. > > Usually following patches are also an explanation of the stuff you are > adding. In this case the usage, as you also said, is pretty clear. > A difference of this patch is that is not a simple library addition, > there's an option, a dummy replacement, a test and configure function. > > What you probably want to say is "I'd prefer the merge to be done > with some code really making use of this library". If that the case > however should not be an excuse to avoid to review it and discuss. What about making a build option to conditionally implement the logging integration that I had initially put in common/log.h? Would that be a better way to proceed? Thanks, Christophe > >> Christophe >> > > Frediano > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel