Hi ----- Original Message ----- > Am 07.10.2015 um 14:16 schrieb Marc-André Lureau: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Am 06.10.2015 um 21:18 schrieb marcandre.lur...@redhat.com: > >>> Marc-André Lureau (45): > >> [...] > >>> tests: add ivshmem qtest > >> > >> I had NAK'ed this patch in v1 and it has not been fixed. If this pull > >> gets merged I will immediately revert it. Not funny. > >> > > > > > > Could stick to technical review, please. The test runs fine without kvm. > > Regarding your copyright claim, I already explain that your older version > > of boilerplate test is really nothing compare to this one. But if you feel > > so strongly about it, I don't care you add a copyright line. > > It is non-technical and called plagiarism.
All tests share common boilerplate. Your test is not even in my tests. You could add it back! > This is not about adding a copyright line to the file, it's about having > a Signed-off-by on your patch. I had the same discussion with Paolo > before, when he supposedly saw-but-not-read my patch. The common > denominator is that every time this happens to me it's *@redhat.com. they are everywhere :) > You were arguing that because your patch does more than mine you don't > need to carry my copyright and Sob - that's an invalid argument given > that even trivial refactoring changes by copyright holder IBM have been > blocking our relicensing efforts. We chose not to define a threshold. I propose to add your patch first, that way you get your test and your copyright. Would that work for you?
