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

Reply via email to