On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:42:43PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hey, > > > > It seems the patch below was pushed without review. Even for trivial > > patches (not saying this one is), it would be nice to send them to the > > mailing list in case people want to review it after the fact. > > > > In this case, the patch has several issues: > > - typo in the commit log (which we can't fix now) > > That's very usual, and really not a problem. > > > - it does not update the .spec files nor the README file which refer to > > 0.20 > > Imho, README is the wrong place for version information. The spec > should also have version based on configure.ac > > > - fixing autobuild.sh means more work on fedora side as f20 does not have > > spice-gtk 0.22 > > ok, updating f20 > > > > > Can we get all pushed patches sent to the mailing list so that we can always > > have the option of getting code review goodness ? :) > > Didn't we discuss this over and over again, and have a rule that says > that trivial fixes such as build-sys and doc don't have to go through > mandatory review? And that you can fix other related things the same > way without making a fuss? Yes we allow trivial fixes, but increasing the min required version of a external dependancy does not qualify as a trivial fix IMHO, particularly if that new version is not available in current stable Fedora releases. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
