From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57330)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1WEToG-0002u2-4Y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:12:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1WEToA-0002zw-4b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:12:48 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10008)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1WETo9-0002zs-TB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:12:42 -0500
Message-ID: <52FEBF9A.3080500@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 02:15:06 +0100
From: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1392242799-16364-1-git-send-email-benoit.canet@irqsave.net>
In-Reply-To: <1392242799-16364-1-git-send-email-benoit.canet@irqsave.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V17 00/12] quorum block filter
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudCBDYW5ldA==?= <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com

On 12.02.2014 23:06, Beno=C3=AEt Canet wrote:
> I post this for review in prevision of 2.0 feature freeze.
> Even if the series look correct please wait before merging because:
>
> The QMP events in the "Add quorum mechanism" definitively needs to be r=
eviewed
> by Eric as they where changed.
>
> I did not found any bugs while testing this version but I am willing to=
 test the
> code further before it's applied even it's reviewed by.
>
> Best regards
>
> Beno=C3=AEt

Just one thing in general: You left my reviewed-by note on many patches=20
of the series although basically every single patch has changed (some=20
more, some less). This makes it harder for me to review (okay, not=20
really; I can (and should) still compare with the old versions for the=20
actual changes, but if I fail to do so...) and can cause some patches to=20
be merged because "I reviewed it" (although I actually didn't) -=20
probably not in this case since it's hard here to pick single patches to=20
merge, but well...

Max