On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 04:24:06PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 4/9/2018 4:58 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> > Keep in mind that Matt has a tendency to sometimes unfairly
> > over-simplify others views;-).  More seriously, c'mon Matt; I went out
> > of my way to spend time learning about Debian's packaging structure and
> > trying to get the details right by talking to folks on
> > #debian-backports.  And as you may have seen, I marked the patch[*] as
> > "RFC", and repeatedly said that I'm working on an agreeable lowest
> > common denominator.
> Sorry Kashyap, I didn't mean to offend. I was hoping "delicious bugs" would
> have made that obvious but I can see how it's not. You've done a great,
> thorough job on sorting this all out.

No problem at all.  I know your communication style enough to not take
offence :-).  Thanks for the words!

> Since I didn't know what "RFC" meant until googling it today, how about
> dropping that from the patch so I can +2 it?

Sure, I meant to remove it on my last iteration; now dropped it.  (As
you noted on the review, should've used '-Workflow', but I typed "RFC"
out of muscle memory.)

Thanks for the review.

    * * *

Aside: On the other patch[+] that actually bumps for "Rocky" and fixes
the resulting unit test fallout, I intend to fix the rest of the failing
tests sometime this week.  Remaining tests to be fixed:


[+] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/558783/ -- libvirt: Bump


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to