From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33994) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zjnsp-0007I1-13 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:31:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zjnsl-0005Mp-R3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:31:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:57181) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zjnsl-0005MU-L5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:31:43 -0400 References: <1444159184-18153-1-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <56150BE8.8020405@suse.de> <2075219250.26126659.1444220200013.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=c3=a4rber?= Message-ID: <561510AD.9090006@suse.de> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:31:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2075219250.26126659.1444220200013.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Andr=c3=a9_Lureau?= Cc: marcandre lureau , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peter maydell 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 = feel so strongly about it, I don't care you add a copyright line. It is non-technical and called plagiarism. 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. 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. Andreas --=20 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG N= =C3=BCrnberg)