From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpVm6-0005L6-PF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:24:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpVm3-0000Q6-L5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:24:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53970) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpVm3-0000P5-Fd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:24:23 -0400 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C08E9C0BEA8F for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:24:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <1444968943-11254-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <1444968943-11254-16-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <87r3knyoix.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <5628F21B.5050700@redhat.com> <56291182.7020907@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:24:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <56291182.7020907@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:40:34 -0600") Message-ID: <87k2qeqezw.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v9 15/17] tpm: Convert to new qapi union layout List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino Eric Blake writes: > On 10/22/2015 08:26 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > >>> PATCH 08-15 appear to be a purely mechanical switch to u. and from kind >>> to type, except for a qapi.py hunk that looks like it should be in PATCH >>> 07, and a comment update to tests/qapi-schema/union-clash-type.json. >>> Did I miss anything? >>> >>> Combined diffstat isn't so bad: >>> >>> 36 files changed, 393 insertions(+), 394 deletions(-) >> >> It already needs a rebase; some of Dan's work has caused more changes to >> ui/vnc.c and util/qemu-sockets.c. So hopefully I post v10 soon. >> >>> >>> I've seen worse tree-wide changes, some of them my own. I'd be tempted >>> to squash the complete switch together. But squashing is easy, so we >>> can keep it separate while we review, and decide when we're done. >> >> Sure, v10 will keep things separate, but squashing won't hurt too much. >> After all, v5 had it all as one patch. > > Just so I'm clear, if we wanted to squash, would it be just 8-15 (just > the mechanical changes, but keeping the front-end scaffolding hack and > backend cleanup, and keeping non-mechanical changes split off of 7 and 8 > as a separate patch), or the entire 7-16 (no hack at all, and nothing to > split off of 7 and 8)? Either way could work.