From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: KVM call minutes for June 15 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:41:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20100615154153.GA2707@infradead.org> References: <20100615151812.GA24131@x200.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Chris Wright Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:48902 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753794Ab0FOPlx (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:41:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100615151812.GA24131@x200.localdomain> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:18:12AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > KVM/qemu patches > - patch rate is high, documentation is low, review is low > - patches need to include better descriptions and documentation > - will slow down patch writers > - will make it easier for patch reviewers What is the qemu patch review policy anyway? There are no "Reviewed-by:" included in the actual commits, and the requirement for a positive review also seem to vary a lot, up to the point that some commiters commit code that has never hit a public mailing list before.