From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eduardo Habkost Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesda, August 28th Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:27:07 -0300 Message-ID: <20120828142707.GD6223@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> References: <87ipc4gd35.fsf@elfo.mitica> <20120828133028.GB6223@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Igor Mammedov , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, KVM devel mailing list , Juan Quintela To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17064 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752853Ab2H1O0I (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:26:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:55:56PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 28 August 2012 14:30, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > - 1.2 branching, or creation of a "cpu-next" tree where "good to be > > merged" patches can live until 1.2 is done; > > With 1.3 due for release in just over a week, it seems unlikely > that it's worth branching at this point... Well, the closer to the release, the smaller the cost of branching as we won't have many patches entering the 1.2 branch, anyway. But in the end, this is more a problem of patch review capacity, than about having a branch created. One can easily create a branch somewhere (I am going to create a "cpu-next" branch for the patches that seem to be "ready to go"), and propose to get it merged after 1.2 is out. But the problem is to have enough eyeballs to look at it to decide if each patch should go into that branch, or not. -- Eduardo