From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Harper Subject: Re: [RFC + PATCHES] Work to get KVM autotest upstream Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:21:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20090513202149.GY3233@us.ibm.com> References: <976153117.150491242244197593.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1855560932.150641242244290232.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.red hat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Goldish Return-path: Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:56852 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752258AbZEMUVu (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 16:21:50 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n4DKHbGP027854 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 16:17:37 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n4DKLpYt256724 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 16:21:51 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n4DKLpJt028483 for ; Wed, 13 May 2009 16:21:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1855560932.150641242244290232.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Michael Goldish [2009-05-13 14:54]: > > ----- "Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues" wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:23 -0400, Michael Goldish wrote: > > > The patches look good, but I haven't tested them yet to make sure > > > they leave everything at a functional state (will test them and let > > > you know). > > > > Thanks Michael! I will start to give more thorough test on this > > today, > > since we finally got 0.10 in shape. > > > > > I have a somewhat related question: how is KVM-Autotest development > > > going to proceed after the upstream merge? Currently I have > > > comfortable access to our repository at TLV, and on good days I > > push > > > as many as 20 patches per day. Should I submit all patches to the > > > Autotest mailing list after the merge, or are we going to work with > > > pull requests, or some other way? Will we work with git or svn? > > > > Here is my plan: For people inside our team, with access to the git > > tree > > we can just pull stuff to the git tree and on a given time basis I > > can > > pick up the patches and send them altogether to the KVM and autotest > > mailing list, wait for reviews and then check them. > > I think it would be nice to have a 'fast' development channel like > directly pulling from a git tree. > > > If you are already used to send all your changes to the KVM mailing > > list > > though, this would pose little or no change to you, just send an > > additional cc to the autotest mailing list. > > > > What do you think? > > So far we've kept development mostly internal in TLV, so I'm not quite > used to passing my commits through the mailing list. Will this be > necessary? I'm worried it might slow down development to a grinding halt. I'd definitely like to see patches to the list before committing; we do the same for kvm, qemu etc, not sure why kvm-autotest should be any different. On the other hand, it's not currently being done that way and I'm not losing any sleep over it; it's easy enough to git log and and email the list if you break something or think something should be done differently. -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx ryanh@us.ibm.com