[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] do not require two ./autogen.sh runs to permit "make"



On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 09:42:32PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> I tracked down the source of the two-autogen.sh-runs-required bug.
> >> Here's the fix:
> >>
> >> Subject: [PATCH] do not require two ./autogen.sh runs to permit "make"
> >>
> >> * autogen.sh (bootstrap_hash): New function.
> >> Running bootstrap may update the gnulib SHA1, yet we were computing
> >> t=$(git submodule status ...) *prior* to running bootstrap, and
> >> then recording that sometimes-stale value in the stamp file upon
> >> a successful bootstrap run.  That would require two (lengthy!)
> >> bootstrap runs to update the stamp file.
> ...[40 lines elided]...
> >
> > ACK
> 
> Thanks.
> Pushed.
> 
> Just a good-natured reminder: everyone I know prefers review feedback
> that removes quoted context for which there is no new comment.  Even here,
> where the patch was small and easy to "see", omitting the 40-50 lines after
> the embedded Subject: or log would have made it a tiny bit easier to read.

  Depends, when approving a patch, and if it's small (one page or so)
I tend to just ACK at the end, it allows to see the context. But if
it's more than one page, I don't like that too much. Basically I think
that one should see some input from the replier on any page displayed,
otherwise it's just lost time and space.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel veillard com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library  http://libvirt.org/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]