From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T3kGL-0008VC-B0 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:56:37 +0200 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2012 01:44:33 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,801,1336374000"; d="scan'208,217";a="207279301" Received: from dell-desktop (HELO [10.237.105.32]) ([10.237.105.32]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2012 01:44:31 -0700 Message-ID: <50334AFC.8080502@intel.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:46:52 +0300 From: Radu Moisan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Saul Wold References: <1345208727-3029-1-git-send-email-radu.moisan@intel.com> <502E696C.8050304@linux.intel.com> <5031D36D.7040107@intel.com> <503269BC.1000106@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <503269BC.1000106@linux.intel.com> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] coreutils: Upgrade to upstream version 8.17 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:56:37 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000408040601080205070107" --------------000408040601080205070107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> Your new patch needs a header, explaining why, and adding >>> Upstream-Status and Signed-off-by tags. >>> >> I meant this only as an RFC, to get feedback for my patch, from a >> functional point of view, it is not intended to be the final patch. >> I have a Signed-off-by tag, are you referring to something else? >> Can you give me more details about Upstream-Status? I've google'd this >> problem for a bit but could not find an existing patch for it, nor a bug >> filled for this matter. Since I don't know yet if what I'm fixing it's >> really a bug (or a misconfiguration on my side) I send this RFC to get a >> hold of whether I'm on the good track here or not. If this patch turns >> out to be valid, I'll get in touch with the guys from coreutils' mailing >> lists, and try to push it upstream. > > Radu, > > For patches included in a given recipe we also have Signed-off-by as > well as the Upstream-Status tag as defined by: > > http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines > > Please review this again. Soul, I understood your point, and in the *actual* patch I will update the Sign-off-by and a short description, and an Upstream Status. However, I reviewed again Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines and there is nothing in there mentioned about RFCs. This is an RFC, and it was intended to get a quick feedback from people more familiar/experienced with coreutils/autotools. I need feedback about the functional change of this patch. In my first reply I described as extensively as I could my problem and my question. As far as the RFCs go, how long should I wait on an RFC? It's been more then a few days and nobody commented. Would it be appropriate to assume that if nobody had any comments, the patch is valid? Radu --------------000408040601080205070107 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Your new patch needs a header, explaining why, and adding
Upstream-Status and Signed-off-by tags.

I meant this only as an RFC, to get feedback for my patch, from a
functional point of view, it is not intended to be the final patch.
I have a Signed-off-by tag, are you referring to something else?
Can you give me more details about Upstream-Status? I've google'd this
problem for a bit but could not find an existing patch for it, nor a bug
filled for this matter. Since I don't know yet if what I'm fixing it's
really a bug (or a misconfiguration on my side) I send this RFC to get a
hold of whether I'm on the good track here or not. If this patch turns
out to be valid, I'll get in touch with the guys from coreutils' mailing
lists, and try to push it upstream.

Radu,

For patches included in a given recipe we also have Signed-off-by as well as the Upstream-Status tag as defined by:

http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines

Please review this again.
Soul,
I understood your point, and in the actual patch I will update the Sign-off-by and a short description, and an Upstream Status. However, I reviewed again  Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines and there is nothing in there mentioned about RFCs. This is an RFC, and it was intended to get a quick feedback from people more familiar/experienced with coreutils/autotools. I need feedback about the functional change of this patch. In my first reply I described as extensively as I could my problem and my question.

As far as the RFCs go, how long should I wait on an RFC? It's been more then a few days and nobody commented. Would it be appropriate to assume that if nobody had any comments, the patch is valid?

Radu
--------------000408040601080205070107--