From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40144) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gqaCL-0003i1-1Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 04:05:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gqaCK-0002u6-4y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 04:05:48 -0500 References: From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <01c75f94-26ae-ffa4-dd46-4dd019702fa0@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:05:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PR RFC] RISC-V Patches for 3.2, Part 3 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Palmer Dabbelt , Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-riscv@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 2019-02-02 09:41, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 01:51:52 PST (-0800), Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 06:39, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> >>> On 2019-01-30 20:01, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >>> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:45:33 PST (-0800), eblake@redhat.com wrote: >>> >> On 1/30/19 11:35 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >>> >>> The following changes since commit >>> >>> 5385a5988c8a55bebdc878c05b96648579b5d6e0: >>> >>> >>> >>>=C2=A0=C2=A0 hw/virtio/virtio-balloon: zero-initialize the >>> virtio_balloon_config >>> >>> struct (2019-01-21 17:20:36 +0000) >>> >>> >>> >>> are available in the Git repository at: >>> >>> >>> >>>=C2=A0=C2=A0 git://github.com/palmer-dabbelt/qemu.git >>> >>> tags/riscv-for-master-3.2-part3 >>> >>> >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to >>> 461ab9de46d085a37b0da6f096aadc4e0dda4d4c: >>> >>> >>> >>>=C2=A0=C2=A0 target/riscv: fix counter-enable checks in ctr() (201= 9-01-29 >>> >>> 11:33:38 -0800) >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> RISC-V Patches for 3.2, Part 3 >>> >> >>> >> There is no 3.2 release; the next release is named 4.0.=C2=A0 Howe= ver, >>> if you >>> >> don't want to bother with sending a v2 pull request just to fix th= e >>> >> merge commit message, that's okay with me. >>> > >>> > Ah, sorry.=C2=A0 I think I'm just going to leave it as is, I'll get= it >>> right >>> > next time. >>> >>> Also note that you used "PR RFC" in the title ... so not sure whether >>> Peter's scripts will catch this PR as a valid one... >> >> My mail filter finds these RFC pullrequests, yes. I'm then >> relying on my manual brain to not actually apply them. >> (If it's a slow day I might do a test merge on them, but >> usually my queue is full enough that I don't get to them >> before the real PR appears.) >=20 > Ah, OK -- do you want me to do something else? At least I got a little bit confused by "PR RFC" ... I think some other maintainers rather send out patch series marked with "PATCH" first, and add some non-pull-request cover letter with a text like "I'm intending to send a pull request for this soon, please review one more time...". Then after a day or two, once Patchew checked the series and nobody else complained, they send a real "PULL" request. (at least that's how I saw the handling on the mailing list in the past, not sure whether Peter has a different point of view here, though). Thomas