Hi Nguyen

Thanks for the information about the new feature that was implemented.
I have looked in the README and conf files and information about how to 
activate trace is documented there as in other services so removing this 
information from the PR document should be OK.

With that said Ack from me

Thanks
Lennart

From: Nguyen Luu [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: den 2 januari 2018 13:35
To: Lennart Lund <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: OpenSAF-Devel (SourceForge) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Review Request for smf: Revise the PR doc with some updates and 
corrections

Hi Lennart,

Thanks for your comments. I have added my replies also as comments (marked with 
[Nguyen]) next to yours in the attached document.
Please help to review it again.

Thanks,
Nguyen

On 1/2/2018 5:00 PM, Lennart Lund wrote:
Hi

I have some minor comments. Have added them as comments in the attached document

Thanks
Lennart

From: Nguyen Luu [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: den 29 december 2017 08:45
To: Lennart Lund <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: OpenSAF-Devel (SourceForge) 
<[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Review Request for smf: Revise the PR doc with some updates and 
corrections

Summary: smf: Revise the PR doc with some updates and corrections
Review request for Trac Ticket(s):
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart Lund, Vijay Roy
Pull request to: Lennart Lund
Affected branch(es): default
Development branch: default

--------------------------------
Impacted area       Impact y/n
--------------------------------
  Docs                    y
  Build system            n
  RPM/packaging           n
  Configuration files     n
  Startup scripts         n
  SAF services            n
  OpenSAF services        n
  Core libraries          n
  Samples                 n
  Tests                   n
  Other                   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
smf: Revise the PR doc with some updates and corrections.

- Update compliance report for section 4.1 Failure Detection of spec
  since Detection for Async Failures has been implemented [#2145].
- Section 6.2.2 Configuration OpenSafSmfExecControl: add description
  for procExecMode=2 (BISU feature).
- Other minor updates and corrections.

Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from 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.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most

engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot



_______________________________________________

Opensaf-devel mailing list

[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to