Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > 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.
Done & pushed to http://repo.or.cz/qemu/armbru.git branch qapi-next. >> >> 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. Yes, please. I'll try to review v8 16-18 quickly.
