Hi Vu Ack with comment.
Comment: It is not easy to understand what this fix is doing. I think a more descriptive comment could be a great help for a future maintainer. This comment could be in one place and describe why this is needed and how this solves the problem for both logFileName and logFilePathName. Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Vu Minh Nguyen [mailto:vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au] > Sent: den 4 mars 2016 04:18 > To: Lennart Lund; mathi.naic...@oracle.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: log agent library is not > backward compatible [#1686] > > Summary: log: log agent library is not backward compatible [#1686] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1686 > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Mathi > Pull request to: Lennart > Affected branch(es): 5.0 > Development branch: 5.0 > > -------------------------------- > 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 3664ee54adf7f3c86eb830862338c873fabe9a8c > Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:07:20 +0700 > > log: log agent library is not backward compatible [#1686] > > The log agent on defaul branch (5.0) was not backward > compatible with the > old OpenSAF versions. > > This fix does an workaround to make it work. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/agents/saf/lga/lga_mds.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Bring one active node up with OpenSAF 4.7, then > bring standby node up with OpenSAF 5.0. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > The standby node is up succesfully. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Get ack from peer reviewers. > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your applications with Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library. Click to learn more. http://makebettercode.com/inteldaal-eval _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
