[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH] [TEST] modified the revision number and resent the patch of VSSDC.03

[Kaitlin Rupert]

Guo Lian Yun wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Guolian Yun <yunguol at cn.ibm.com>
> # Date 1209433604 25200
> # Node ID 99ff1eb252d20b3954a1ad4e6788f1ca1341a800
> # Parent  2b83c1992dfc44573ba0c00729e36311355807ad
> [TEST] modified the revision number and resent the patch of VSSDC.03
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guolian Yun <yunguol at cn.ibm.com>
> 
> diff -r 2b83c1992dfc -r 99ff1eb252d2 suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemSettingDataComponent/03_vssdc_fwd_errs.py
> --- a/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemSettingDataComponent/03_vssdc_fwd_errs.py	Sun Apr 27 19:22:03 2008 -0700
> +++ b/suites/libvirt-cim/cimtest/VirtualSystemSettingDataComponent/03_vssdc_fwd_errs.py	Mon Apr 28 18:46:44 2008 -0700
> @@ -62,12 +62,14 @@ from CimTest.ReturnCodes import PASS, FA
>  from CimTest.ReturnCodes import PASS, FAIL
>  from CimTest.Globals import do_main, logger
>  from CimTest.Globals import CIM_USER, CIM_PASS, CIM_NS
> +from XenKvmLib.const import CIM_REV
> 
>  sup_types = ['Xen', 'XenFV', 'KVM']
> 
>  test_dom     = "domu1"
>  test_mac     = "00:11:22:33:44:aa"
>  test_vcpus   = 1
> +rev = 393

I think the actual change set is 417.  While 393 works (it's the 
changeset that tags the tree for the new release), it's misleading.

Thoughts?
-- 
Kaitlin Rupert
IBM Linux Technology Center
kaitlin at linux.vnet.ibm.com