From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpng2.m.smailru.net (smtpng2.m.smailru.net [94.100.179.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A7C0452566 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:34:36 +0300 (MSK) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:34:31 +0300 From: Alexander Turenko Message-ID: <20191108173430.j4xijtm57ccl22pc@tkn_work_nb> References: <20191108152201.rujz3l66llp4jatn@tkn_work_nb> <20191108162009.GE31677@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191108162009.GE31677@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] build: enable CentOS 8 packaging List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Igor Munkin Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 07:20:09PM +0300, Igor Munkin wrote: > Sasha Ti. and Sasha Tu., > > Thanks, though I left some minor comments below the polished patch is > totally LGTM. > > Sasha Tu., feel free to proceed. Thanks for review! Pushed to master, 2.2, 2.1 and 1.10. CCed Kirill. > > My variant of the commit message is below. Please, let me know whether > > you are okay with it. I left all points you highlighted and tried to > > make its description more easy to understand w/o much context. > > > > | travis-ci/gitlab-ci: add CentOS 8 > > Minor: build label seems to be more suitable for this changeset. Okay. Changed to 'build: add CentOS 8 into CI / CD'. > > | Eliminated libunwind runtime dependency (and libunwind-devel build > > | dependency) on CentOS 8, because the base system does not provide it. > > | fiber.info() backtraces and printing of a backtrace after a crash will > > | not be available on this system. Hopefully we'll fix it in the future, > > | filed #4611 on this. > Minor: feel free to mention a co-author here cause you both made a huge > work on this issue. Don't sure how to differentiate situations when I should add 'Reviewed-by' and when 'Co-developed-by'. Added the former, because my changes were made in response to Alexander's request to review his patch.