On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 13:22:37 +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 10/10/19 12:43 AM, John Snow wrote: >> It's an old compatibility shim that just delegates to ide-cd or ide-hd. >> I'd like to refactor these some day, and getting rid of the super-object >> will make that easier. >> >> Either way, we don't need this. >> >> Libvirt-checked-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Peter made a comment regarding Laszlo's Regression-tested-by tag: > > [...] nobody else is using > this convention (there are exactly 0 instances of > "Regression-tested-by" in the project git log as far as > I can see), and so in practice people reading the commits > won't really know what you meant by it. Everybody else > on the project uses "Tested-by" to mean either of the > two cases you describe above, without distinction... > > It probably applies to 'Libvirt-checked-by' too. I certainly didn't test it. So feel free to drop that line altogether.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 13:42:26 +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 10/10/19 1:26 PM, Peter Krempa wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 13:22:37 +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 10/10/19 12:43 AM, John Snow wrote: >>>> It's an old compatibility shim that just delegates to ide-cd or ide-hd. >>>> I'd like to refactor these some day, and getting rid of the super-object >>>> will make that easier. >>>> >>>> Either way, we don't need this. >>>> >>>> Libvirt-checked-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> >>> Peter made a comment regarding Laszlo's Regression-tested-by tag: >>> >>> [...] nobody else is using >>> this convention (there are exactly 0 instances of >>> "Regression-tested-by" in the project git log as far as >>> I can see), and so in practice people reading the commits >>> won't really know what you meant by it. Everybody else >>> on the project uses "Tested-by" to mean either of the >>> two cases you describe above, without distinction... >>> >>> It probably applies to 'Libvirt-checked-by' too. >> >> I certainly didn't test it. So feel free to drop that line altogether. > > But you reviewed it, can we use your 'Reviewed-by' instead? To be honest, I didn't really review the code nor the documentation. I actually reviewed only the idea itself in the context of integration with libvirt and that's why I didn't go for 'Reviewed-by:'. The gist of the citation above is that we should stick to well known tags with their well known meanings and I think that considering this a 'review' would be a stretch of the definiton.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 14:08:12 -0400, John Snow wrote: > On 10/10/19 7:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 13:42:26 +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 10/10/19 1:26 PM, Peter Krempa wrote: [...] >> To be honest, I didn't really review the code nor the documentation. >> I actually reviewed only the idea itself in the context of integration >> with libvirt and that's why I didn't go for 'Reviewed-by:'. >> >> The gist of the citation above is that we should stick to well known >> tags with their well known meanings and I think that considering this a >> 'review' would be a stretch of the definiton. >> > > I wasn't aware that PMM wanted to avoid non-standard tags; I consider > them to be for human use, but I can change that behavior. > > Peter, I'll change it to an ACK (as suggested by Kevin) is that's OK by you. Sure! I'll spell it out even for compliance: ACKed-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa(a)redhat.com&gt;