Re: [PATCH] Make sure to use tools as found by configure

[Christoph Egger <chegger@amazon.de>]

On 14.05.13 10:44, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 21:32 +0100, Matt Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 18:10 +0100, Matt Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 01:59:53PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 7172e6e0020328d14638a0bbb66a52c905cb4b0b
>>>>> Author: Christoph Egger <chegger@amazon.de>
>>>>> Date:   Thu Feb 7 14:29:19 2013 +0000
>>>>>
>>>>>     Make sure to use tools as found by configure.
>>>>>     Fold inclusion of Tools.mk into toplevel Config.mk.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <chegger@amazon.de>
>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilson <msw@amazon.com>
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, I Nack'ed this in review and gave two options:
>>>
>>> I was about to query this, thanks for clarifying.
>>>
>>> Christoph, please be more careful in future not to misrepresent peoples
>>> review.
>>>
>>> In general I would think it a good idea if Reviewed-by tags are posted
>>> publicly by the Reviewer on xen-devel, even if the review was carried
>>> out internally prior to posting, this would help avoid this sort of
>>> issue. Not a rule I don't think, but would help avoid mistakes...
>>
>> I think it could help avoid mistakes, but it might cause some
>> complications. I asked Christoph to post patches with the appropriate
>> Reviewed-by:/Acked-by:/etc. line
> 
> I'm confused, you Nacked this patch and then asked Christoph to post it
> with your Reviewed-by anyway?

I think, this is my fault. We agreed on moving the discussion about the
patch to xen-devel and not the patch itself.

One reason for my mistake is that I didn't understand the design of
the build system. I was thinking in: there is a hypervisor and a
tools part. But in real there is a hypervisor part, a tools part,
a stubdom part and a docs part and each part has its own configure
except the hypervisor part.

Christoph

> 
>>  because I'm in a timezone that's
>> fairly far from him and most committers. I sometimes get behind on
>> xen-devel mail and it's possible that a committer might commit a
>> posted patch before I reply on the list, and we'd lose a valuable bit
>> of audit trail in the history.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are worried about here, we could always revert if
> when you catch up you aren't happy with the commit.
> 
> Ian.
> 
>