On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 15:01:22 +0100, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> On 10/30/25 07:51, Peter Krempa via Devel wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:47:11 -0400, Aaron Brown wrote:
> > > On 10/24/25 13:49, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The patches look good to me as they addressed all my comments from
> > > > previous version (and sorry for missing this, and the ping).
> > > > 
> > > > Any reason why this is still labelled as RFC? Can it be merged?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 10/24/25 8:29 AM, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Peter,
> > > > I would appreciate you merging it.
> > > > The RFC seems to be an oversight.
> > > 
> > > Hi all, I labelled these patches as RFC in case there were any additional
> > > changes requested. If not, it is ready to merge.
> > 
> > Please note for future patches, the RFC label is used for patches where
> > you are unsure about your design (and e.g. didn't fully implement
> > everything) or have a dependancy that's still blocking them.
> > 
> > In general anything that is not really supposed to be merged in the
> > proposed form.
> > 
> 
> This series might have fallen through the cracks.
> It can be merged unless Aaron is supposed to resend it without RFC.
> Please let Aaron know what to do. Thanks.

Eh, I was about to push it at the start of this dev cycle. I've even
said as much to Aaron in my reply to Aarons private message to me. I
don't know what happened because I didn't even find my branch where I
had the patches applied (which would normally mean that they are
pushed).

Anyways I've found them in the reflog including my R-b tags ... so I'll
push them after CI finishes:

https://gitlab.com/pipo.sk/libvirt/-/pipelines/2176162602

Series:

Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <[email protected]>

Reply via email to