Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.1 v7 1/1] hw/block/pflash_cfi01: Add missing DeviceReset() handler

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 07/22/19 19:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 17:51, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/19/19 18:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> Hi Laszlo,
>>>
>>> On 7/18/19 9:35 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> On 7/18/19 8:38 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>>> Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Patchwork doesn't recognize your R-t-b tag:
>>>
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1133671/
>>>
>>> Should I change it for a Tested-by, or add as it?
>>
>> Please pick it up manually, as it is, if that's possible.
>>
>> I prefer to dedicate "Tested-by" to cases where my before-after
>> comparison highlights a difference (i.e., bug disappears, or feature
>> appears). I dedicate "R-t-b" to cases where nothing observable changes
>> (in accordance with my expectation).
> 
> The counter-argument to this is that nobody else is using
> this convention (there are exactly 0 instances of
> "Regression-tested-by" in the project git log as far as
> I can see), and so in practice people reading the commits
> won't really know what you meant by it. Everybody else
> on the project uses "Tested-by" to mean either of the
> two cases you describe above, without distinction...

OK. If "Tested-by" carries both meanings in the QEMU git log, then I'm
fine with either tag (T-b or R-t-b) from me on this patch. (Or I'll try
to remember this in the future anyway, seeing that Phil has submitted a
pull request already.)

Thanks
Laszlo

> (At one point we talked about using checkpatch to enforce
> that we used a particular set of tags, mostly to avoid
> people managing to typo the tagname, but also partly to
> retain some consistency of usage.)
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM
>