Hi Praveen, is it ok to push these patches? /Regards HansN -----Original Message----- From: Hans Feldt Sent: den 9 juni 2014 10:39 To: Hans Nordebäck; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 2] Review Request for AMF: remove EDU use in App v2 [#713]
Ack for series, review only /HansF > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Nordeback [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 9 juni 2014 10:19 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 2] Review Request for AMF: remove EDU use > in App v2 [#713] > > Summary: AMF: remove EDU use in App v2 Review request for Trac > Ticket(s): #713 Peer Reviewer(s): Praveen Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): default > Development branch: default > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> > > changeset 19d705ed8bc1468660c6c01a4e75196d06d88a8e > Author: Hans Nordeback <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:07:59 +0200 > > amfd: use simple decode in App ckpt v2 [#713] > > changeset aff1d211d5060a293c42d598fd2024a9be158121 > Author: Hans Nordeback <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:35 +0200 > > amfd: use simple encode in App ckpt v2 [#713] > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/ckpt_dec.cc | 67 > ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------------------- > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/ckpt_edu.cc | 51 > +-------------------------------------------------- > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/ckpt_enc.cc | 45 > ++++++++++++++++----------------------------- > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/ckpt_edu.h | 3 --- > 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > <<LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES>> > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>> > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>> > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 y y > powerpc n n > powerpc64 n n > > > Reviewer Checklist: > ------------------- > [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any > checkmarks!] > > > Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): > > ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries > that need proper data filled in. > > ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. > > ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header > > ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. > > ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. > > ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. > > ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files > (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) > > ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. > Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. > > ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. > > ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes > like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. > > ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other > cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. > > ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is > too much content into a single commit. > > ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) > > ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; > Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. > > ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded > commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. > > ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication > of what has changed between each re-send. > > ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the > comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. > > ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) > > ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the > the threaded patch review. > > ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results > for in-service upgradability test. > > ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series > do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis > Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC > Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. > Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration > http://www.hpccsystems.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensaf-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HPCC Systems Open Source Big Data Platform from LexisNexis Risk Solutions Find What Matters Most in Your Big Data with HPCC Systems Open Source. Fast. Scalable. Simple. Ideal for Dirty Data. Leverages Graph Analysis for Fast Processing & Easy Data Exploration http://p.sf.net/sfu/hpccsystems _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
