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

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Why?

Patch came on a Thursday and was applied on a Saturday.  That's pretty much one 
business day.

For a problem that affects very few people (and hence has very few people 
complaining), it seems like a reasonable response time.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori