[virt-tools-list] [virt-viewer] "Require spice-gtk 0.22" commit

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:42:43PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > It seems the patch below was pushed without review. Even for trivial
> > patches (not saying this one is), it would be nice to send them to the
> > mailing list in case people want to review it after the fact.
> >
> > In this case, the patch has several issues:
> > - typo in the commit log (which we can't fix now)
> 
> That's very usual, and really not a problem.
> 
> > - it does not update the .spec files nor the README file which refer to
> >   0.20
> 
> Imho, README is the wrong place for version information. The spec
> should also have version based on configure.ac
> 
> > - fixing autobuild.sh means more work on fedora side as f20 does not have
> >   spice-gtk 0.22
> 
> ok, updating f20
> 
> >
> > Can we get all pushed patches sent to the mailing list so that we can always
> > have the option of getting code review goodness ? :)
> 
> Didn't we discuss this over and over again, and have a rule that says
> that trivial fixes such as build-sys and doc don't have to go through
> mandatory review? And that you can fix other related things the same
> way without making a fuss?

Yes we allow trivial fixes, but increasing the min required version of
a external dependancy does not qualify as a trivial fix IMHO, particularly
if that new version is not available in current stable Fedora releases.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|