On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 03:10:33PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 04:05:00PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:03 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .gitpublish | 4 ++++ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 .gitpublish > > > > > > diff --git a/.gitpublish b/.gitpublish > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..bf82571 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/.gitpublish > > > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ > > > +[gitpublishprofile "default"] > > > +base = master > > > +to = virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > > +prefix = virt-viewer PATCH > > > > In general, I believe "PATCH virt-viewer" order is more common. > > When we did this for libvirt, the exact opposite was asserted, hence > we used "$module PATCH". I think it does make sense to have the > "PATCH" word next to the patch sequence numbers too. I'd like to be > consistent with libvirt in this area in any case. virt-manager patches which also go to this list have the same format as I proposed here, so I've pushed this as is, for consistency between projects Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
