Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> writes: >> This isn't appropriate for 2.10 now we are feature frozen. That said I > > Surely. From the cover: > > "... provided at the end of this series as RFC for people wanted > to give a try (also include 'dockershell' script and a fix in > ./configure). These RFC patches (33-35) are not expected to enter > 2.10."
My mistake - I hadn't gone over the cover letter. I would usually expect a series with [PATCH for 2.10] just to contain stuff being considered for the immediate future. > > Peter also commented on the "./configure" patch, so I probably > mis-titled "RFC" those patch > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-07/msg07584.html: > "I prefixed this patch 'RFC' to not consider it but provide it > if someone wanted to reproduce the analysis. Maybe I should prefix it > 'XXX' next time or 'NOT FOR MERGE'." > > better "NOT FOR REVIEW" or "!RFC"? :p Better to post a logically separate series. It's fine to make an in-flight series a pre-requisite though (not that I think you need it here). >> have pondered a helper script for this sort of thing before. As it stand >> I just rely on my shell to remember the correct invocation for me. >> >> This is the sort of functionality we would need for maybe cross >> compiling tests using docker. > > This script is way incomplete and far being finished. > > Regards, > > Phil. -- Alex Bennée
