Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  wrote:
>> On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
>>> better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for
>>> sweeping up trivial patches has been working well; maybe we
>>> could use a slightly more formal qemu-urgent process for
>>> flagging up build breakage etc?
>>>
>>> (Personally I'd support a rule that any outstanding
>>> build-breakage fixes must always go in before anything else.)
>>
>>
>> When are build-breakage fixes not trivial?
>
> 'trivial' implies "it's OK if this patch doesn't go in for a
> week or two until the trivial patch queue has built up to
> a reasonable size". Also sending them via trivial means
> there's no mechanism for causing them to be applied before
> other commits/pullreqs. So generally I don't cc build-fixes to
> trivial.

In all fairness, the last build breakage I see was specific to win32, was 
reported on Mar 1st, and a patch was committed on Mar 3rd.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect more than this for a breakage on win32.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> -- PMM