From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LwdbL-0000of-UX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:39:04 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LwdbG-0000nx-BM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:39:02 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51445 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LwdbG-0000nA-33
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:38:58 -0400
Received: from caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.134.17]:38037)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>) id 1LwdbF-0005ty-LG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:38:57 -0400
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:38:56 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Switching to git
Message-ID: <20090422143855.GC3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
References: <49EF1A26.70007@us.ibm.com>
	<761ea48b0904220720h48a3c53cv9f90a3c94a31f5d5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0904220720h48a3c53cv9f90a3c94a31f5d5@mail.gmail.com>
From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
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: Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:20:44PM +0200, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> And what for people between users and maintainers, for instance those
> who propose patches?  Will there be some recommendations on how
> to post patches so that it works well?  And don't forget that for some
> people just telling "a set of patches is good as long as it can be
> bisected" is too short :-)

Commits that can be bisected is very appreciated.  I have hit way too
many commits in qemu that cause build failures, segfaults, etc, and just
generally make bisecting a major pain.

The segfaults I can accept as things that happen (although not checking
pointers is kind of sloppy coding, but may run slightly faster when it
is not segfaulting).  Code that doesn't build on the other hand should
never have been checked in.

-- 
Len Sorensen