----- Original Message ----- > 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 It was implicitly required before that commit. > if that new version is not available in current stable Fedora releases. I thought it was there already, now updating it. _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
