Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 02/10] scripts: Coccinelle script to use ERRP_AUTO_PROPAGATE()

From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
	"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Paul Durrant" <paul@xen.org>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>,
	"Christian Schoenebeck" <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>,
	"Michael Roth" <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Greg Kurz" <groug@kaod.org>,
	"Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>,
	"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	"Anthony Perard" <anthony.perard@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, "Max Reitz" <mreitz@redhat.com>,
	"Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>,
	"Stefan Berger" <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 02/10] scripts: Coccinelle script to use ERRP_AUTO_PROPAGATE()
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:23:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sgi3xafl.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28ac8e37-6b43-3755-61d7-41dc2d45ed94@virtuozzo.com> (Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy's message of "Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:36:06 +0300")

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> writes:

> 20.03.2020 16:58, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> writes:
[...]
>>> I will not be surprised, if we missed some more interesting cases :)
>>> But we should proceed. What is our plan? Will you queue v10 for 5.1?
>>
>> v10's PATCH 1+2 look ready.  The error.h comment update could perhaps
>> use some polish; I've focused my attention elsewhere.
>>
>> PATCH 8-9 are generated.  They should never be rebased, always be
>> regenerated.  We compare regenerated patches to posted ones to make sure
>> they are still sane, and the R-bys are still valid.  I can take care of
>> the comparing.
>>
>> I'd like to have a pull request ready when the tree reopens for general
>> development.  Let's use the time until then to get more generated
>> patches out for review.
>>
>> If I queue up patches in my tree, we shift the responsibility for
>> regenerating patches from you to me, and create a coordination issue:
>> you'll want to base patch submissions on the branch I use to queue this
>> work, and that's going to be awkward when I rebase / regenerate that
>> branch.  I think it's simpler to queue up in your tree until we're ready
>> for a pull request.
>>
>> When you post more patches, use
>>
>>      Based-on: <20200317151625.20797-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
>>
>> so that Patchew applies them on top of this series.  Hmm, probably won't
>> do, as PATCH 9 already conflicts.
>>
>> You could instead repost PATCH 1+2 with each batch.  I hope that's not
>> too confusing.
>>
>> I trust you'll keep providing a tag reviewers can pull.
>>
>> I suggest to ask maintainers to leave merging these patches to me, in
>> cover letters.
>>
>> Makes sense?
>>
>
> Hmm.
>
> I remember what Kevin said about freeze period: maintainers will queue
> a lot of patches in their "next" branches, and send pull requests at start
> of next developing period. This highly possible will drop r-bs I can get now.
> And reviewers will have to review twice.
>
> And for the same reason, it's bad idea to queue in your branch a lot of patches
> from different subsystems during freeze.
>
> So, just postpone this all up to next development phase?

Okay.  I hope we can process generated patches at a brisk pace then.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel