Hi Lennart,
Sure. Thanks for your response.
Thanks,
Krishna,
High Availability Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
www.hasolutions.in
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request
for smf: correct LOG_NO to TRACE [#2849]
From: "Lennart Lund" <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
Date: 9/21/18 1:29 pm
To: "Krishna Pawar" <kris...@hasolutions.in>, "Rafael Odzakow"
<rafael.odza...@ericsson.com>
Cc: "opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" <opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Hi,
Sorry for a late response. I will be able to do a review on Monday 24/9
Thanks
Lennart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Pawar <kris...@hasolutions.in>
> Sent: den 14 september 2018 09:59
> To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Rafael Odzakow
> <rafael.odza...@ericsson.com>
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Krishna Pawar
> <kris...@hasolutions.in>
> Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smf: correct LOG_NO to TRACE
> [#2849]
>
> Summary: smf: correct LOG_NO to TRACE [#2849]
> Review request for Ticket(s): 2849
> Peer Reviewer(s): lennart lund, rafael odzakow
> Pull request to:
> Affected branch(es): develop
> Development branch: ticket-2849
> Base revision: 9310db55886092748469c6d3e09f6b3bb021886f
> Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/krishna-hasoln/review
>
> --------------------------------
> 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 ***
>
> revision 5ec2a034c17bbabc9658d7869ab2bdac377c4dba
> Author: Krishna Pawar <kris...@hasolutions.in>
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 13:01:37 +0530
>
> smf: correct LOG_NO to TRACE [#2849]
>
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
> src/smf/smfd/SmfUtils.cc | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
> *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES ***
>
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS ***
>
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -------------------------
> Archrt lund, rafael odzakow
>
>
> 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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.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
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
