Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [Qemu-commits] [COMMIT f80f9ec] Convert machine registration to use module initfunctions

[Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>]

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 08:34:48PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:36:01PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
>>   
>>>> From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>> This cleans up quite a lot of #ifdefs, extern variables, and other
>>>> ugliness.
>>>>       
>>> This changes the default for at least the ARM target, which I 
>>> consider to be a bug. Worse than that, the default is now arbitrary 
>>> and depends on unspecified toolchain implementation details.
>>>     
>> How about we start sending patches to the list? Then this kind of thing can be avoided.
>>   
>
> It doesn't magically solve the problem.  I post most patches and still  
> regressions slip in.  I review every patch I commit and still  
> regressions slip in.  People are imperfect.
true.

>
> The best way to prevent regressions is to have an automated test suite  
> that everyone can use to validate that a series of patches doesn't break  
> things.
true...

>
>> Note that although at first there is nothing wrong with just messing around with
>> the devel repository, this kind of thing breaks bisectability of the 
>> tree, which is kind of a pain.
>>   
>
> You can always --skip.  I understand your point.  In this case, the  
> patch was very large and mostly mechanical.  There was a design flaw but  
> I didn't expect to get much useful feedback because of the shear amount  
> of things it touched.

however, for a lot of patches that recently went in, there were discussions
_after_ the patch made its way to the repository. The discussions help, everybody
does that. Giving people a chance to stand up and raise valid points before
a change is made to the repository is at the very least, a polite attitude to be
taken. And although I agree with you that it does not solve all problems, it
really does help improving the situation by a huge leap.