Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm/arm64: KVM: MMIO support for BE guest

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

On 12/11/13 09:41, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 07:41:30PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 11/11/2013 19:26, Marc Zyngier ha scritto:
>>>>> The pull requests were clean and my life wasn't complicated much...  On
>>>>> the other hand I'm trying to understand if there's something that can be
>>>>> improved because the conflict surprised me.  Right now, in fact, it's
>>>>> not even entirely clear to me why ARM and ARM64 have separate maintainers.
>>> Mostly because arm64 was developed and merged before any kind of useful
>>> documentation was publicly available. As I've written most of the code,
>>> it was only logical that I'd assume responsibility for it.
>>
>> That was my understanding as well.
>>
>>> Christoffer and I are actually working quite well together, and I don't
>>> think there is much to improve, short of sharing a common git tree. And
>>> to be perfectly clear, I wouldn't mind if we were written down as
>>> co-maintainers for both ports...
>>
>> Then go for it. :)  Send a patch to MAINTAINERS, get an Acked-by from
>> Christoffer and I'll apply it.
>>
>> Gleb and I share the git tree and hand it off "formally" by email every
>> 1 or 2 weeks to the other person.  After the email is sent, the sender
>> should no longer push to the shared tree.  This however is by no means
>> the only way to proceed, having separate trees and sending separate pull
>> requests works well too.  I would not mind the occasional conflict, and
>> I'd be hardly surprised.
> 
> I'd cast my vote (if I have one) towards the sharing a tree method. For
> those of us scrambling to get caught up with kvmarm, a reduction in the
> number of trees and branches we need to track would be a welcome change.

Not sure what the benefit would be. We'd go from two trees with
respectively x and y branches, to a single tree with x+y branches.

Christoffer and I tend to work on separate topics, we track what the
other does, and we make sure we don't overlap. And if we do, we shove
the related patches in the same branch. Overall, whether or not we
switch to co-maintainership, I don't expect our workflow to change much.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...