| Message ID | 1443189844-20341-22-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > > --- > monitor.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Trivial, can be applied now without waiting for pending qapi patches. Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c > index 4deef29..25f9608 100644 > --- a/monitor.c > +++ b/monitor.c > @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ static void monitor_flush_locked(Monitor *mon) > return; > } > if (rc > 0) { > - /* partinal write */ > + /* partial write */ > QString *tmp = qstring_from_str(buf + rc); > QDECREF(mon->outbuf); > mon->outbuf = tmp; >
25.09.2015 19:08, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: >> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> >> >> --- >> monitor.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Trivial, can be applied now without waiting for pending qapi patches. > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Note there's no S-o-b line in the original patch (whole series, looks like). Hopefully it is okay for such a really trivial patch :) Applied, thanks! /mjt
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> writes: > 25.09.2015 19:08, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: >>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> >>> >>> --- >>> monitor.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> Trivial, can be applied now without waiting for pending qapi patches. >> >> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > > Note there's no S-o-b line in the original patch (whole series, > looks like). Hopefully it is okay for such a really trivial > patch :) > > Applied, thanks! It may be legally safe, but do we really want to engage in judging whether patches are copyrightable or not? Besides, it sets a bad example. Marc-André, please repost your patches ready for -trivial with your S-o-B, cc: qemu-trivial.
05.10.2015 08:09, Markus Armbruster пишет: > Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> writes: > >> 25.09.2015 19:08, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: >>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> [] >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> >> >> Note there's no S-o-b line in the original patch (whole series, >> looks like). Hopefully it is okay for such a really trivial >> patch :) >> >> Applied, thanks! > > It may be legally safe, but do we really want to engage in judging > whether patches are copyrightable or not? Besides, it sets a bad > example. Sometimes I question our own sanity. Even for a trivial spelling fix we require significantly more beaurocracy(sp) than the fix is worth, and want formal rules instead of using common sense. This is a common trend in the world, to formalize everything instead of thinking, the world is becoming "candy". This reminded me an old movie, "Demolition Man", -- the cops in the future reads instructions about what to do in each situation they happened to come. But oh well, no one want to take responsibility, that's okay ;) Sorry for somewhat non-technical answer, I'll revert this patch, waiting for more beaurocracy. > Marc-André, please repost your patches ready for -trivial with your > S-o-B, cc: qemu-trivial. Mind you, it was a large series, with wasn't intended for -trivial at all. That's more rules and more beaurocracy. And many other patches in that series didn't have s-o-b line too. Thanks, /mjt
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> writes: > 05.10.2015 08:09, Markus Armbruster пишет: >> Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> writes: >> >>> 25.09.2015 19:08, Eric Blake wrote: >>>> On 09/25/2015 08:03 AM, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com wrote: >>>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> > [] >>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> >>> >>> Note there's no S-o-b line in the original patch (whole series, >>> looks like). Hopefully it is okay for such a really trivial >>> patch :) >>> >>> Applied, thanks! >> >> It may be legally safe, but do we really want to engage in judging >> whether patches are copyrightable or not? Besides, it sets a bad >> example. > > Sometimes I question our own sanity. Even for a trivial spelling fix > we require significantly more beaurocracy(sp) than the fix is worth, > and want formal rules instead of using common sense. This is a common > trend in the world, to formalize everything instead of thinking, the > world is becoming "candy". This reminded me an old movie, "Demolition > Man", -- the cops in the future reads instructions about what to do > in each situation they happened to come. But oh well, no one want to > take responsibility, that's okay ;) > > Sorry for somewhat non-technical answer, I'll revert this patch, > waiting for more beaurocracy. Well, it could be worse, it could be CLA and copyright assignment. S-o-B is probably the most lightweight thing we can do to stay on relatively solid legal ground. In my opinion, applying the "must have S-o-B" rule unthinkingly is less effort than trying to identify cases where we can do without. >> Marc-André, please repost your patches ready for -trivial with your >> S-o-B, cc: qemu-trivial. > > Mind you, it was a large series, with wasn't intended for -trivial > at all. That's more rules and more beaurocracy. And many other > patches in that series didn't have s-o-b line too. Chances are these patches really need it, so Marc-André has to repost his series anyway.
diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c index 4deef29..25f9608 100644 --- a/monitor.c +++ b/monitor.c @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ static void monitor_flush_locked(Monitor *mon) return; } if (rc > 0) { - /* partinal write */ + /* partial write */ QString *tmp = qstring_from_str(buf + rc); QDECREF(mon->outbuf); mon->outbuf = tmp;
From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> --- monitor.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)