From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Panu Matilainen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: support any legal git revisions as abi validation range Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 18:08:49 +0200 Message-ID: <5665AF11.8080307@redhat.com> References: <56659309.6010305@redhat.com> <2170557.zTAETIpyLV@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCBC95DD for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 17:08:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <2170557.zTAETIpyLV@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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 . " >>> "validate-abi.sh master mybranch " etc in addition to >>> validating between tags. Makes it easier to run the validator >>> for in-development work. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen >>> Acked-by: Neil Horman >>> --- >>> >>> 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 >