meta review of your review: On 09/22/15 20:11, John Snow wrote: > Reviewed from an en_US perspective, though I left alone things that are > clearly regional (e.g. 'behaviour' vs 'behavior') > > On 09/22/2015 12:35 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> + - Add information to the help output message to report on the new >> + feature flag. >> + > > Remove period, or add to the other list items for consistency. My > personal preference is to use the period for any sentences with proper > grammatical structure, omitting it for simple list items. Then: >> +which create binaries must include the $(EXESUF) variable on the binary >> +name. eg > > 'e.g.' here and everywhere subsequent. Self-contradiction found!!!1111eleven :) Honestly I'm surprised (or not) how many typos you've found that I blissfully slid over. >> +Each system/userspace emulation target needs to have a slightly >> +different set of make rules / variables. Thus, make will be recursively >> +invoked for each of the emulation targets. >> + >> +The recursive invokation will end up processing the toplevel > > invocation again. Self-contradictory period again! :) > Thanks for writing this! Yes! > Pretending to be Eric, Yes. :) Cheers Laszlo
