On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 15:01:22 +0100, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
On 10/30/25 07:51, Peter Krempa via Devel wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:47:11 -0400, Aaron Brown wrote:
On 10/24/25 13:49, Peter Krempa wrote:
The patches look good to me as they addressed all my comments from previous version (and sorry for missing this, and the ping).
Any reason why this is still labelled as RFC? Can it be merged?
On 10/24/25 8:29 AM, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
Hi Peter, I would appreciate you merging it. The RFC seems to be an oversight.
Hi all, I labelled these patches as RFC in case there were any additional changes requested. If not, it is ready to merge.
Please note for future patches, the RFC label is used for patches where you are unsure about your design (and e.g. didn't fully implement everything) or have a dependancy that's still blocking them.
In general anything that is not really supposed to be merged in the proposed form.
This series might have fallen through the cracks. It can be merged unless Aaron is supposed to resend it without RFC. Please let Aaron know what to do. Thanks.
Eh, I was about to push it at the start of this dev cycle. I've even said as much to Aaron in my reply to Aarons private message to me. I don't know what happened because I didn't even find my branch where I had the patches applied (which would normally mean that they are pushed). Anyways I've found them in the reflog including my R-b tags ... so I'll push them after CI finishes: https://gitlab.com/pipo.sk/libvirt/-/pipelines/2176162602 Series: Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>