On 6/13/19 2:33 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
> Does this series add a syntax-check rule to prevent reversion
back to
> older styles when new files are introduced? For example, I now have
> to
> rebase my pending incremental backup work on top of this, which adds
> new
> files, but without a syntax-check rule addition, I can't quickly
> identify which files I plan to add that need a tweak.
Good point. I did not add a syntax check yet. In fact, this is not even
the complete patch series. The whole patch series is actually about 60
patches, but I didn't want to flood the mailing list right away on my
first submission. So I just sent the first 20 or so in case people
wanted to split them up differently. I can try to add a syntax check to
include when I send the rest of the series.
>
>> Reviewed-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko(a)redhat.com>
>> and pushed.
> Thus, it would be a nice followup patch for you to work on.
>
Sure thing.
In fact, if you're not done patching things, a syntax check would fire
prematurely :) So it must be last in your series, but it's also nice
knowing that there is more to come.
If nothing else, you can test that applying the syntax check early flags
things you still need to fix, and that applying it at the end of your
work finds nothing wrong.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:
qemu.org |
libvirt.org