From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MloQJ-0000tW-Ha for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:31:11 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MloQE-0000sT-UT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:31:11 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59693 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MloQE-0000s8-K7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:31:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8190) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MloQE-0002RP-6U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:31:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RESEND2] Qemu unmaintained? From: Mark McLoughlin In-Reply-To: <4AA92ADF.80003@redhat.com> References: <20090902074905.GB25711@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <20090909121817.GA21997@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <4AA7A6EC.10907@codemonkey.ws> <20090910070336.GD3351@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AA90592.7080100@codemonkey.ws> <4AA90F7F.2030709@redhat.com> <4AA92122.3050103@codemonkey.ws> <4AA924AE.8060807@redhat.com> <4AA927D8.7000900@codemonkey.ws> <4AA92ADF.80003@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:29:56 +0100 Message-Id: <1252607396.3403.57.camel@blaa> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: Mark McLoughlin List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Amit Shah , Bernhard Kauer , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 19:35 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Unfairly picking on Mark (who usually writes truly excellent changelogs, > but this one is such a gem): > > > Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/19] Suppress more more kraxelism > > > > Let's kick off this series with some of the more critical fixes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark McLoughlin > > > > What would you be thinking hunting the commit log for some change and > coming up with this? > > (Mark, apologies for picking on you, it's truly unfair of me, but I > can't help it) As you say, I normally try very hard with my changelogs, but I don't think the odd joke hurts much. Look back over the changelog to a similar, but even more concise commit message, a couple of weeks back that didn't go through Anthony. I was parodying that one :-) Anyway, you've cc-ed me now, so IMHO: - If one is so inclined, improving a commit message before pushing is perfectly fine - A simple "Applied, thanks" would be hugely appreciated - This "apply everything, test at length, reject problematic patches" appears to lead to a very batchy patch flow; there's a trade off to be made between trying to catch every regression before it hits the tree and the delay that effort introduces before the tree gets more widely tested by others Cheers, Mark.