From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F21FC433E4 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:13:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF0B120709 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:13:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="eRKwRznX" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CF0B120709 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:49748 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyZ9u-0001BT-3z for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:13:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60816) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyZ9K-0000l7-Sn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:12:30 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:36277 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyZ9I-0005Tk-9w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:12:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1595502747; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/fPj4rORpQOyT0MafAPtla2gV0nREWnhoe4axb9BYMY=; b=eRKwRznX/F5+UgVG9bRECWqNKVfRZomRn0upW9C7zhyYBFFJ7eDkvBcDSWP2Ax0JWLeAv1 MQuqFv0rTMkScWlJDxKTs6/l+KT7Pm8lvig3bKE9M1A4Xtw39hfE8+ZhHBl3xAM1GKdnR+ qgrtWi6IO2RrDmKgbSUKThbtZ2QglsI= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-210-fGx2D78zOZC3hv8ppL4O2Q-1; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:12:25 -0400 X-MC-Unique: fGx2D78zOZC3hv8ppL4O2Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 541A480046A; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:12:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-143.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.143]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA7D5D9E8; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2B1A3111CA26; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:12:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: please try to avoid sending pullreqs late on release-candidate day References: <20200722093621.GA4838@linux.fritz.box> <87r1t3u4me.fsf@linaro.org> <87o8o6pwwm.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <16f1e661-edaa-2ee2-008d-3c9ad0e5e10d@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:12:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <16f1e661-edaa-2ee2-008d-3c9ad0e5e10d@redhat.com> ("Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:26:57 +0200") Message-ID: <87eep2jxil.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.139.110.120; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/23 06:04:25 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -40 X-Spam_score: -4.1 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Jason Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 writes: > On 7/23/20 8:28 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Alex Benn=C3=A9e writes: >>=20 >>> Kevin Wolf writes: >>> >>>> Am 21.07.2020 um 17:56 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: >>>>> It is not helpful if everybody sends their pullrequests late >>>>> on the Tuesday afternoon, as there just isn't enough time in the >>>>> day to merge test and apply them all before I have to cut the tag. >>>>> Please, if you can, try to send pullrequests earlier, eg Monday. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> So given that we _will_ have some late patches, what can we do to >>>> improve the situation? >>>> >>>> Maybe I could send the pull request before testing it to save some tim= e. >>>> Your tests will take a while anyway, so if my own testing fails (e.g. >>>> for the parts of iotests that you don't test), I would still have time >>>> to NACK my own pull request. This wouldn't buy us more than an hour at >>>> most and could lead to wasted testing effort on your side (which is >>>> exactly the resource we want to save). >>>> >>>> Can you test multiple pull requests at once? The Tuesday ones tend to = be >>>> small (between 1 and 3 patches was what I saw yesterday), so they shou= ld >>>> be much less likely to fail than large pull requests. If you test two >>>> pull requests together and it fails so you have to retest one of them = in >>>> isolation, you still haven't really lost time compared to testing both >>>> individually. And if it succeeds, you cut the testing time in half. >>> >>> I've taken to just stacking up patches from my multiple trees to avoid >>> sending more than one PR a week. Of course sometimes the stack grows a >>> bit too tall and becomes unwieldy :-/ >>=20 >> You're right, stacking unrelated smaller pull requests makes sense when >> pulling all the pull requests in flight races with a deadline. > > I tend to disagree, since few patches from the "candidate fixes for > 5.1-rc1" series are still being discussed, and we are past rc1. Half > of them could have been merged in for rc1. That's a different issue, I think. Picking patches that are ready and independent when the complete series isn't often makes sense. More so when a deadline is involved.