On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 03:16:19PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Forwarding, on request:
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:53:43 -0400
From: Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)redhat.com>
To: Jim Meyering <meyering(a)redhat.com>
Cc: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: Re: [Libvir] [PATCH] update from gnulib
Message-ID: <20080430085343.GF25119(a)redhat.com>
Reply-To: veillard(a)redhat.com
References: <20080430072336.4A4D18E0038(a)hormel.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080430072336.4A4D18E0038(a)hormel.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-09-08)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 05:57:36PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Meyering <meyering(a)redhat.com>
Hum, to me the gnulib update side is under your control, I don't
feel it's necessary for you to post the patch, unless you know there
may be an associated change for the other developpers. Others may disagree
but I don't think I can really review those :-)
Yep, I agree - its fine to update gnulib and just notify the list afterwards.
There's nothing we can sensibly review in the patch, and after all, the
whole point of gnulib is that other people have already reviewed & tested
this for us :-)
Dan.
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|