Hi Hans

ack for the series

Thanks
Gary

> On 14 Oct 2015, at 12:33 AM, Hans Nordeback <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Summary: amfd: Replace legacy data structures with STL
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1543
> Peer Reviewer(s): Nagu, Praveen, Gary
> Pull request to: 
> Affected branch(es): default
> Development branch: default
> 
> --------------------------------
> Impacted area       Impact y/n
> --------------------------------
> Docs                    n
> Build system            n
> RPM/packaging           n
> Configuration files     n
> Startup scripts         n
> SAF services            y
> OpenSAF services        n
> Core libraries          n
> Samples                 n
> Tests                   n
> Other                   n
> 
> 
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> ---------------------------------------------
> <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>>
> 
> changeset 0b9c2eea89fea6891eafe4c027c91c484dbd2751
> Author:       Hans Nordeback <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:20:24 +0200
> 
>       amfd: Use std::queue instead of macros [#1543]
> 
>       Use std::queue instead of macro m_AVD_DTOND_MSG_PUSH and POP
> 
> changeset 5c0c93ac8d73eb18689d802abd857e4fc0aa9d01
> Author:       Hans Nordeback <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:52 +0200
> 
>       amfd: Use std::queue instead of macros [#1543]
> 
>       Use std::queue instead of macro m_AVD_EVT_QUEUE_ENQUEUE and DEQUEUE
> 
> 
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
> osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/include/cb.h |  63 
> +++--------------------------------------------------
> osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/main.cc      |   8 +++---
> osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/ndmsg.cc     |  10 +++-----
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
> Run AmfDemo, 2-N, N-way active
> 
> 
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> Should run without errors
> 
> 
> Conditions of Submission:
> -------------------------
> <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>
> 
> 
> Arch      Built     Started    Linux distro
> -------------------------------------------
> mips        n          n
> mips64      n          n
> x86         n          n
> x86_64      y          y
> powerpc     n          n
> powerpc64   n          n
> 
> 
> Reviewer Checklist:
> -------------------
> [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
> 
> 
> Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
> 
> ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
>    that need proper data filled in.
> 
> ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
> 
> ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
> 
> ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
> 
> ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
> 
> ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
> 
> ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
>    (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
> 
> ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
>    Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
> 
> ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
> 
> ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
>    like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
> 
> ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
>    cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
> 
> ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
>    too much content into a single commit.
> 
> ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
> 
> ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
>    Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
> 
> ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
>    commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
> 
> ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
>    of what has changed between each re-send.
> 
> ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
>    comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
> 
> ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc)
> 
> ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
>    the threaded patch review.
> 
> ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
>    for in-service upgradability test.
> 
> ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
>    do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to