On 10/13/2015 11:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> >>> I've come to the conclusion that we should get rid of the self-inflicted >>> pain before we attempt to detect all collisions. >> >> Then that sounds like I should try harder to get the kind/type naming, >> the boxed base naming, and even the anonymous union naming all hoisted >> into this subset, and spin a v9? > > I can take PATCH 01-09,12 into my tree right away, with PATCH 07's two > redundant is_implicit() methods dropped, and PATCH 12's comment touched > up.
Okay. > > I could take PATCH 10, but let's at least try to make a plan for > c_name() first. If we fail, I'll take the patch, perhaps less the % to > + change, and we'll revisit c_name() later when we see more clearly. At this point, I'm not sure whether 10 disappears completely after the type/kind fix, so that alone is a good enough reason to leave 10 out of your tree for another round. > > You want to move PATCH 11 to later in the queue, and I like that. > > PATCH 13 needs a fix squashed in, and a few nits touched up. If you > want me to do that on commit, please propose a patch for me to squash > in. But a respin is probably easier for all. > > PATCH 14 is fine, but it depends on 13. > > I haven't finished review of PATCH 15-18. > > Taken together, I think the easiest way forward is I take 01-09,12, and > you respin the rest after we finish its review. Makes sense? > Sounds like we're agreed then: take the obvious patches into your tree, and let me rework the tail of this subset on top of cleanups that reduce self-inflicted collisions. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
