Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] xenctx: Clean up stack trace when hypercall_page not in symbol table

[Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3268 bytes --]

On 11/07/13 07:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:47 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 07.11.13 at 09:22, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:07 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> And a note on patch submission: You send _to_ the list, and _cc_
>>>> maintainers and other relevant people (without stretching the
>>>> meaning of "relevant" too much).
>>> Do we need such a rule? Why is it useful?
>>>
>>> I personally don't mind which field causes the mail to arrive in my
>>> INBOX. I suppose you filter "To: xen-devel; Cc: Jan" differently to "To:
>>> Jan; Cc: xen-devel"?
>> Exactly. Mails Cc-ed to me get treated almost equally to all other
>> xen-devel traffic, whereas mails directed at me mean to me that
>> a response or other kind of action is expected. Basically the
>> usual (common sense?) email rules...
>>
>> So maybe I was too strict about the maintainer part - I don't mind
>> being sent mails to me that fall under the areas I'm maintainer of,
>> since there I'm obviously requested to take some sort of action.
>> But in the case here I certainly feel it was wrong to send the
>> whole series _to_ everyone.
> Ah, yes that makes sense, I hadn't noticed that bit.
Well, I was confused.  get_maintainer.pl reports that

George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> (supporter:XENTRACE)
Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)

 From MAINTAINERS:

         M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>

and I followed that.  It was months ago that I read over the wiki page.

Jan came from:

    Subject: 	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xenctx: Add an option to output
    more registers.
    Date: 	Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:00:05 +0100
    From: 	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
    To: 	Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
    CC: 	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Don Slutz
    <Don@CloudSwitch.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
    Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini
    <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel
    <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>



    >>> On 17.10.13 at 20:41, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
    > From: Don Slutz <Don@CloudSwitch.com>
    >
    > Also fixup handling of symbol files, and output of 2 page stacks, and output
    > of non stack memory.

    Considering the size of the change this should be broken up, and
    the individual changes need to be described better in the commit
    message.
    [...]

and my understanding was that re-worked patches need to have 
--to=<responder> added.  One on the things that is not clear is do I 
change from --cc= to --to=after a response?

>>> http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Patches#Cc_the_maintainer_of_
>>> the_code_you_are_modifying is confusingly worded and somewhat contradictory,
>>> in that it initially requests to send to the maintainer and then later to cc
>>> them. As I say, I don't think it really matters which but if you care then it
>>> would be useful to clarify the wording there.
>> Yes, I think we should.
I would agree.  I would also change the wording in MAINTAINERS.

    -Don Slutz

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6733 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel