From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] scripts: support any legal git revisions as abi validation range
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 18:08:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5665AF11.8080307@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2170557.zTAETIpyLV@xps13>
On 12/07/2015 04:32 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-12-07 16:09, Panu Matilainen:
>> On 12/03/2015 04:05 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> In addition to git tags, support validating abi between any legal
>>> gitrevisions(7) syntaxes, such as "validate-abi.sh -1 . <target>"
>>> "validate-abi.sh master mybranch <target>" etc in addition to
>>> validating between tags. Makes it easier to run the validator
>>> for in-development work.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
>>> Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v2 changes:
>>> - update usage and error messages to match new behavior
>>> - update documentation too (as suggested by John McNamara)
>>>
>>
>> I started wondering why this didn't get applied along with the other
>> abi-validator changes and noticed this is sitting in patchwork in
>> "changes requested" state, which doesn't seem right: v2 added the
>> requested documentation.
>
> It seems to be an error.
>
>> The discussion around this patch did spur another request (ability to
>> pass parallel build flags to make) but that's entirely unrelated, so it
>> shouldn't hold up this one.
>
> Yes
>
>> I've no intention of sending a v3 of this patch because AFAIK there's
>> nothing to fix and the make-flags thing does not belong here, but
>> resetting the state to "new" by myself feels like cheating or something
>> :) So what's the correct action here? There's preciously little
>> documentation about expected patchwork workflow and such.
>
> It's not cheating.
> Changing patchwork status and send such an email looks to be the right thing
> to do.
Ok, done. Thanks for clarifying.
>
> Yes maybe we can improve the contributing guide.
Perhaps this could be used as a base, or referred to (assuming of course
the info is rasonably applicaple to dpdk too)?
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Patch%20Review%20Workflow
- Panu -
> Thanks
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-07 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-02 16:50 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Panu Matilainen
2015-12-02 18:23 ` Neil Horman
2015-12-03 12:14 ` Mcnamara, John
2015-12-03 13:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-12-03 13:44 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-12-03 13:49 ` Richardson, Bruce
2015-12-03 15:46 ` Mcnamara, John
2015-12-03 13:39 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-12-03 13:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-12-03 14:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Panu Matilainen
2015-12-07 14:09 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-12-07 14:32 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-12-07 16:08 ` Panu Matilainen [this message]
2015-12-07 22:38 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5665AF11.8080307@redhat.com \
--to=pmatilai@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).