From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K3XuM-0001OU-4S
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:54:42 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1K3XuK-0001N3-2l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:54:41 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56137 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3XuJ-0001N0-SD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:54:39 -0400
Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:57247)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>) id 1K3XuI-0002bX-P4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:54:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion
From: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>
In-Reply-To: <200806031535.40996.paul@codesourcery.com>
References: <193307.64140.qm@web57014.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<alpine.DEB.1.00.0806031433430.13507@racer.site.net>
	<18501.20210.209142.106241@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<200806031535.40996.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:54:31 +0200
Message-Id: <1212504871.4286.11.camel@frecb07144>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

Le mardi 03 juin 2008 =C3=A0 15:35 +0100, Paul Brook a =C3=A9crit :
> > But I do think it is important that we have _some_ new committer(s)
> > who are keen to do the kind of routine patch review and inclusion,
> > which is sadly currently not getting the necessary prompt attention.
>=20
> I'd just like to point out that committing patches is easy. The hard (a=
nd time=20
> consuming) bit is identifying, rejecting, fixing and/or making construc=
tive=20
> comments on all the bogus patches. The are lots of patches that fall in=
to=20
> this latter category, e.g. patches that have clearly only ever been tes=
ted on=20
> x86 targets. It doesn't take any special privileges to do this patch re=
view.

The real question is: who do you trust ?

Regards,
Laurent
--=20
------------- Laurent.Vivier@bull.net ---------------
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- Alan Kay