[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#31498: [PATCH] Notify systemd in daemon-initialized
From: |
Lucas Werkmeister |
Subject: |
bug#31498: [PATCH] Notify systemd in daemon-initialized |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Jun 2018 23:40:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 |
Thanks for the review! Replies inline.
On 07.06.2018 15:08, Noam Postavsky wrote:
> severity 31498 wishlist
> severity 31521 wishlist
> quit
>
>
> Thanks, the patch seems straightforward enough. Just a few minor
> comments about formatting. Have you assigned copyright for Emacs? The
> patch is small enough to go in anyway, it would just have to be marked.
I haven’t assigned copyright yet, but I’d be happy to do so – I’ve tried
to get the process started on emacs-devel.
>
> Lucas Werkmeister <mail@lucaswerkmeister.de> writes:
>
>> With --[bg-]daemon and Type=forking, systemd will only consider the
>> daemon to have fully started up once the original process exits, and
>> will wait until then to start units depending on the Emacs service. To
> ^
> double
> space
ack
>> get the same functionality with --fg-daemon, use Type=notify instead of
>> Type=simple and explicitly send a readiness notification to systemd at
>> the point where the forked process would in --bg-daemon mode notify its
>> parent process and cause it to exit.
>> * etc/emacs.service: update Type
>
> The ChangeLog entries should be captilalized and end with a period:
> "Update Type."
>
>> * src/emacs.c (daemon-initialized): call sd_notify()
>
> Same here.
2× ack
>
> I think it should have a NEWS entry mentioning that Emacs now supports
> this systemd notification feature. I would probably go ahead and
> combine with #31521, since it's using the same feature.
>
Do you mean, announce both in this patch, or completely merge that patch
into this one?
Once I’ve fixed the problems locally, what’s the best way to re-roll the
patch in this bug tracking system? Should I try to configure `git
send-email` to reply to the right email (and with the right bug in CC),
or perhaps use `git format-patch` and add the patch file as a regular
attachment in a manual response?