[PATCH 10/14] hw/mips/fuloong2e: Fix typo in Fuloong machine name

[Aleksandar Markovic]

уто, 26. мај 2020. у 15:04 Aleksandar Markovic
<aleksandar.qemu.devel at gmail.com> је написао/ла:
>
> уто, 26. мај 2020. у 14:50 Peter Krempa <pkrempa at redhat.com> је написао/ла:
> >
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 14:37:41 +0200, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +mips ``fulong2e`` machine (since 5.1)
> > > > > +'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> > > > > +
> > > > > +This machine has been renamed ``fuloong2e``.
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Libvirt doesn't have any special handling for this machine so this
> > > > shouldn't impact us.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, Peter,
> > >
> > > I was also wondering libvirt listed as a recipient, and I think it
> > > creates unneeded noise in your group, but Philippe uses some his
> > > system for automatic picking of recipients, and libivrt somehow
> > > appears there during that process. Philippe, either correct that
> > > detail in this particular component of your workflow, or change
> > > entirely your system for recipient choice - the current workflow
> > > creates incredible amount of noise, wasting time of many people.
> >
> > Note that my message above was not a criticism of why we've got it but
> > more of a review. This review though it just that removing this is okay
> > and no action needs to be taken. Unfortunately I'm usually not familiar
> > enough with qemu to do a full review.
> >
> > >
> > > This happened before in case of deprecating an ancient mips machine,
> > > that absolutely  doesn't have anything to do with linvirt.
> >
> > In some cases it might seem like that. Specifically for things where
> > libvirt isn't impacted such as machine type change because we try to
> > stay machine type agnostic or for something that we don't use.
> >
> > On the other hand there were plenty cases where we were impacted and
> > where we do want to know about these deprecations. It's in fact the
> > primary reason why this was established after an agreement between qemu
> > and libvirt projects and in fact I was one of those who argued for
> > adding such a thing.
> >
> > As I was one of the proponents I feel obliged to always respond to these
> > notifications as we've more than once encountered something that in the
> > end impacted libvirt.
> >

But, Peter Krempa,

I see libvirt-dev listed as a recipient for a patch (from this series)
that changes an e-mail of a colleague of mine. Why would be
libvirt-dev be interested in that? Is libvirt really so sensitive to
the degree that to be afraid that changing an e-mail of a QEMU
contributor would impact libvirt design and/or its interface towards
QEMU? If you wishes that to remain so, I am of course fine with it,
who am I to determine that, but it looks like a severe overkill to me.

Best Regards,
Aleksandar



>
> Glad to know that you guy have clear division of responsibility between members.
>
> Good to know the background of all this.
>
> Thanks you,
> Aleksandar
>
> > Please do keep sending these to libvirt. It's appreciated to know that
> > something is going to change! In some cases we don't get a notification
> > (such as in the recent QAPIfication of netdev-add where non-well-formed
> > string stopped to be accepted by qemu) and then we have to figure out
> > only after it trickles down to users.
> >