Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] ocaml: Fix compile with ocaml 4.06, use unsafe strings

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:47:34AM +0000, Christian Lindig wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 26. Jan 2018, at 11:43, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:29:20AM +0000, Christian Lindig wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On 26. Jan 2018, at 09:09, M A Young <m.a.young@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, John Thomson wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Use autoconf to test if ocaml version >= 4.02
> >>>> If so, use -unsafe-string for ocamlopt and ocamlc
> >>>> 
> >>>> Bytes & safe-string were introduced in ocaml 4.02 (2015-07-27)
> >>>> 
> >>>> With ocaml 4.06, -safe-string is now default
> >>>> This separates the types bytes (mutable string) and string
> >>> 
> >>> For Fedora Rawhide, which has ocaml 4.06, we came up with a patch to make 
> >>> xen ocaml safe-strings compliant (which I haven't got around to 
> >>> submitting 
> >>> to this list yet).
> >>> 
> >>> The patch is at
> >>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xen/blob/master/f/xen.ocaml.safe-strings.patch
> >>> with the related Fedora bug at
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526703
> >>> 
> >>>   Michael Young
> >> 
> >> The patch looks good and I would prefer to take it than to use 
> >> -unsafe-string which isn’t a solution in the long run.
> >> 
> > 
> > Hi Christian
> > 
> > Is that an ack?
> > 
> > Could you please in future explicitly give an Acked-by or Reviewed-by
> > tag so that committers know they can apply the proposed patch directly?
> 
> 
> Sorry, I was assuming because this is an RFC that we are in a general 
> discussion. Also, the patch was not part of the message. I still reviewed it.

Normally when committers see "patch looks good" they would ask the
maintainer to clarify whether that should be treated as an ack or
reviewed-by. Or if committers feel the intent is clearly enough, just
turn that line into an ack or rb.

To avoid needlessly round trip maintainers would normally give
explicitly ack or review, and perhaps avoid sending ambiguous message.

If this patch is still under discussion, that's fine. There is no need
to give a tag in a hurry. I just want to make sure you know the norm of
how your message is interpreted.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Christian Lindig <christian.lindig@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 

Taking the above into consideration, does this tag still stand?

Also I think Andrew's comment needs to be addressed.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel