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

["Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>]

Am 13.03.2012 14:50, schrieb Avi Kivity:
> On 03/13/2012 11:09 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> If we start saying that, Alex "owns" ppc except for things that are
>>> "important" like a build breakage, then we get into the ugly definition of
>>> what's important and what's not important.
>>
>> I don't think we've had huge problems with defining "trivial" and I
>> don't think we'd really have big arguments about "urgent" either --
>> as the gatekeeper you and the other direct-committers can always use
>> your judgement and say 'this should go through the submaintainer tree'.
>>
>> I agree completely with Alex about why urgent fixes don't mesh well with
>> the periodic submaintainer tree pullreq workflow. Dumping the 'urgent'
>> fix problem off onto submaintainers is basically asking us all to
>> have an extra 'foo-urgent' tree and send out single patch pullreqs,
>> which seems to me like a very heavyweight way of causing a patch to
>> be applied 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I have a memory/core branch and a memory/urgent branch --
> it's trivial to maintain them with git, and quite often I send a 1-patch
> pull request.  There's no material difference between sending a patch
> and sending a pull request (except if you use git.kernel.org, ugh), and
> it does guarantee you priority handing.

Actually there is: A trivial fix can be sent with a one-liner:

$ git send-email HEAD^

whereas there is no matching command for sending a pull request. You
need to manage your own scripts that place git-pull-request output into
the cover letter. (And quite obviously you need a publicly available git
repository in the first place. Most of us do by now.)

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg