From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100A12118D92A for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 04:21:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A038D80F7C; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-236.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.236]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021F11974D; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:21:45 +0000 (UTC) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= Cc: yuchenlin , Anthony Perard , Jordan Justen , edk2-devel-01 , Phil Dennis-Jordan References: <20181102032402.19686-1-yuchenlin@synology.com> <20181102032402.19686-6-yuchenlin@synology.com> <4d3da28e-42ca-c54e-1efa-c6fc8c9b0fb2@redhat.com> <3167b5fd-5514-5a79-e400-39d7c64e50ea@redhat.com> <6d5e3697-6da6-37bb-c47d-a971c6c360d0@redhat.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <97ebc87a-1266-0f18-8f99-13b67f90374f@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:21:44 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] OvmfPkg: simply use the Bochs interface for vmsvga X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:21:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11/12/18 12:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:20 PM Laszlo Ersek > 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 , >>>> - 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