From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3c9p-0006c6-Rq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:26:57 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3c9m-0006Xm-HM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:26:57 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33878 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3c9m-0006XC-3L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:26:54 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:45433) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3c9m-0003oQ-4k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:26:54 -0400 Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1K3c9j-0002Cg-H6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:26:51 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:26:51 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion Message-ID: <20080603192651.GD6899@shareable.org> References: <193307.64140.qm@web57014.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <18501.20210.209142.106241@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <200806031535.40996.paul@codesourcery.com> <18501.23962.985598.92661@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080603151729.GB1222@shareable.org> <18501.25321.636839.502256@mariner.uk.xensource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18501.25321.636839.502256@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Ian Jackson wrote: > Jamie Lokier writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion"): > > It's the Linus Torvalds school of flow control. If you don't get a > > reply, try again. > > I see. That seems rather rude to me, so I don't do it. Am I really > supposed to keep a list of my outstanding patches and retransmit them > like some kind of bandwidth-hogging peer-to-peer application ? Exponential backoff - find the natural pace others can work at. You don't have to be a bandwidth hog :-) But I was joking. For the Linux kernel, Linus has said that's what _he_ prefers, back in the days before Git, but I don't know what's preferred here. Some patches get a good response quickly, just look at recent threads. I would guess it depends on which subsystem and whether it's in the areas of interest of currently active developer-commiters. > Also - implicit in your comment that it's a form of `flow control' is > that it's caused by a lack of upstream capacity. I think that part is > very true. We do have a lack of capacity, which can be solved in this > case by adding one or more people I think. Perhaps. It's not necessarily easy to do that well. -- Jamie