On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 04:05:00PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:03 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > --- > > .gitpublish | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 .gitpublish > > > > diff --git a/.gitpublish b/.gitpublish > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..bf82571 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/.gitpublish > > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ > > +[gitpublishprofile "default"] > > +base = master > > +to = virt-tools-list@redhat.com > > +prefix = virt-viewer PATCH > > In general, I believe "PATCH virt-viewer" order is more common.
When we did this for libvirt, the exact opposite was asserted, hence we used "$module PATCH". I think it does make sense to have the "PATCH" word next to the patch sequence numbers too. I'd like to be consistent with libvirt in this area in any case. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list
