From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52752)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VWWRM-000391-K7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:07:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VWWRG-0007GS-Ld
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:07:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16702)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VWWRG-0007GL-DO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:07:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:09:52 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20131016190952.GA8797@redhat.com>
References: <1377442777-11066-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org>
	<CAFEAcA-LMHCkoQuintD9ygjFY+-UqJuXXnzuV7QjXSr9APtNwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA9xr6rHkMNUGPSOi5S-kwTcWCbSgoRiF=9AXzhTMAV53g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9xr6rHkMNUGPSOi5S-kwTcWCbSgoRiF=9AXzhTMAV53g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/9] Remove legacy unaligned bswap functions
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:36:58PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Ping^2, seven weeks after initial post and code review.
> 
> Frankly, our mechanism for committing patches which aren't
> obviously localised to a specific subsystem sucks :-(
> It seems like pretty much every time it takes multiple
> pings and a month or two before anything gets into the tree.
> (at least this one doesn't require a rebase...)
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM

I think we should have a rule: no response within two weeks, any
maintainer can apply the patch.  We can make exceptions e.g. if
maintainer notifies list he's unavailable, etc, but that should be the
rule.

-- 
MST