From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aurelien Jarno Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call minutes for June 15 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:15:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20100617051532.GA3086@hall.aurel32.net> References: <20100615151812.GA24131@x200.localdomain> <20100615154153.GA2707@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Cc: Chris Wright , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([88.191.82.174]:45749 "EHLO hall.aurel32.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751065Ab0FQFPq (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:15:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100615154153.GA2707@infradead.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:41:53AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. > This is indeed something very useful that should be encouraged. Depending on the patch and the persons that have reviewed/acked it, I commit some patches only after a very quick look. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net