Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] OvmfPkg: simply use the Bochs interface for vmsvga

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 11/12/18 12:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:20 PM Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> On 11/06/18 14:44, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 6/11/18 14:36, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/18 12:47, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... While we discuss this, I'll go ahead and push the first four
>>>>> patches. The code being reverted is dead anyway. I'll report back
>>>>> about the commit hashes.
>>>>
>>>> Before pushing the first four patches, I regression-tested them as
>>>> well.
>>>> Using: Cirrus, stdvga, and QXL. My QEMU version was
>>>> v3.0.0-1763-gb2f7a038bb4c. The machine type was "pc-q35-3.0".
>>>>
>>>> For the first four patches:
>>>> - Regression-tested-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>,
>>>> - pushed them as commit range 62ea70e31285..328409ce8de7.
>>>
>>> Thanks Laszlo!
>>> A bit late, but 1-4 reviewed too.
>>
>> can you please formally state your R-b, for the first four patches?
>> For when I apply them again, after edk2-stable201811.
>
> Sure, I was not aware the "reply to cover" option was not formal for
> this list, I'll do.
> (TIL: "reply to cover" is list CoC specific)

"reply to cover letter" is perfectly fine on this list as well (it never
occurred to me that it would be unacceptable for any list in the first
place) -- but where did you respond to:

  [edk2] [PATCH v2 0/5] OvmfPkg: simply use the Bochs interface for vmsvga
  http://mid.mail-archive.com/20181102032402.19686-1-yuchenlin@synology.com

?

... Ahhh, wait, now I see where our misunderstanding is. :) By
"formally", I did not mean that you should respond to every single patch
(#1 through #4) separately, with your R-b. Responding under the cover
letter, or even just in this thread, is perfectly fine. What I'm asking
for instead is that you please "formally" spell out your Reviewed-by
tag. In edk2 we strongly prefer carrying R-b tags from the mailing list
to commit messages verbatim (i.e. with the clipboard). We dislike
synthesizing formal R-b tags from messages like "sure, reviewed by me
too".

So, again, in this context, "formally" only means that you please repeat
your "reviewed too" message "formally" with an R-b tag, spelled out. A
response in this thread is perfectly fine.

Sorry about the confusion!
Laszlo