I have pushed the 4.5 fixes to the immsv README. I added a new README.RESOUCE_DISPLAY where I copied and edited most of the information found in the review request written by Neel for this ticket.
In general it is better to put such information as comments in the ticket than in the Review request. The ticket is itself part of (actually the focus) of the RR and that way the information becomes accessible in the repo. I did not bother to send this out on review again, since this is "just" documentation and I mainly copied what Neel wrote in the RR. /AndersBj -----Original Message----- From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com] Sent: den 28 augusti 2014 16:57 To: Anders Björnerstedt Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for IMM: Update immsv/README to reflect all enhancements done in 4.5 [#988] Hi AndersBj, Reviewed the patch. Ack with following comments. 1. in this section the new readme file pushed by hans can be written README.ACCESS_CONTROL +#938 IMM Access control (4.5) +============================= +http://sourceforge.net/p/opensaf/tickets/938/ +See ticket for details. 2. mention of enhancement https://sourceforge.net/p/opensaf/tickets/35/ is not there. /Neel. On Wednesday 20 August 2014 12:59 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: IMM: Update immsv/README to reflect all enhancements done in > 4.5 [#988] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 988 Peer Reviewer(s): > Neel; (Zoran) Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 4.5; default(4.6) Development branch: > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services n > OpenSAF services y > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 1363957909068feedd9f2bd94686bcb655b42b2b > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com> > Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:00:02 +0200 > > IMM: Update immsv/README to reflect all enhancements done in 4.5 > [#988] > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/README | 201 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
