From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zjo4z-0002pI-C6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:44:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zjo4t-0003nh-Mk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:44:21 -0400 Received: from mx6-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.39]:46313) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zjo4t-0003nB-E5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:44:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:44:13 -0400 (EDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Message-ID: <1146125127.26155100.1444221853707.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <561510AD.9090006@suse.de> References: <1444159184-18153-1-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <56150BE8.8020405@suse.de> <2075219250.26126659.1444220200013.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <561510AD.9090006@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/48] ivshmem series List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= Cc: marcandre lureau , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peter maydell Hi ----- Original Message ----- > Am 07.10.2015 um 14:16 schrieb Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Am 06.10.2015 um 21:18 schrieb marcandre.lureau@redhat.com: > >>> Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau (45): > >> [...] > >>> tests: add ivshmem qtest > >> > >> I had NAK'ed this patch in v1 and it has not been fixed. If this pull > >> gets merged I will immediately revert it. Not funny. > >> > >=20 > >=20 > > Could stick to technical review, please. The test runs fine without kvm= . > > Regarding your copyright claim, I already explain that your older versi= on > > of boilerplate test is really nothing compare to this one. But if you f= eel > > so strongly about it, I don't care you add a copyright line. >=20 > It is non-technical and called plagiarism. All tests share common boilerplate. Your test is not even in my tests. You = could add it back! > This is not about adding a copyright line to the file, it's about having > a Signed-off-by on your patch. I had the same discussion with Paolo > before, when he supposedly saw-but-not-read my patch. The common > denominator is that every time this happens to me it's *@redhat.com. they are everywhere :) > You were arguing that because your patch does more than mine you don't > need to carry my copyright and Sob - that's an invalid argument given > that even trivial refactoring changes by copyright holder IBM have been > blocking our relicensing efforts. We chose not to define a threshold. =20 I propose to add your patch first, that way you get your test and your copy= right. Would that work for you?