On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:22:38AM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 2:34 PM Fabiano Fidêncio <fiden...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > In general, it looks good and works as expected. > > > > I will add my "Reviewed-by: " after we discuss the points raised. > > > > > > > > Another thing, please, let's sync to have the libvirt-jenkins-ci work > > > > done and merged before this one gets merged. > > > > > > Works for me, thanks for review, I'll fix the dist script to use a shell > > > script. > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fiden...@redhat.com> > > One last things here (thanks, Pavel, for pointing this out), I'd > prefer the 'syntax' suite being called 'syntax-check' just because > people are already used to the 'syntax-check' name. > > So, please, would you mind changing it as well?
I don't mind changing it if we agree on the naming, I'll have one last argument for the shorter and easier to type name, coping it from the comment on gitlab: To me it feels redundant to have the `check` as part of the suit label as you already know that you are running test suit so the check is somehow implied. Consistency is a nice thing if it makes sense, but we are completely changing the workflow so I don't see any reason to pick longer and redundant name just for consistency reasons. Based on that I still prefer using simply `syntax`, let's see of others have some opinion about it. Thanks, Pavel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
