From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7T2s-0005NS-P7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:49:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7T2q-0004YT-UB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:49:50 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46053 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7T2q-0004Xx-Kr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:49:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4F5F5E88.9040601@suse.de> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:49:44 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F5E58BE.6040808@weilnetz.de> <4F5E5C49.6060900@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E66A8.5050308@weilnetz.de> <4F5E6809.1000405@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E8774.2010003@suse.de> <4F5E91CA.7040104@codemonkey.ws> <4F5F50BF.2020107@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F5F50BF.2020107@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Peter Maydell , Stefano Stabellini , Stefan Weil , Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori 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 definiti= on 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 wi= th >> 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=20 >=20 >=20 > 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-patc= h > 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 --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg