From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59499 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOYGy-0005SQ-Kd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:41:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOYGx-0006z6-MZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:41:56 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:60716) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOYGx-0006yn-L1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:41:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:41:53 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <20100615154153.GA2707@infradead.org> References: <20100615151812.GA24131@x200.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100615151812.GA24131@x200.localdomain> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call minutes for June 15 List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Chris Wright Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:18:12AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > KVM/qemu patches > - patch rate is high, documentation is low, review is low > - patches need to include better descriptions and documentation > - will slow down patch writers > - will make it easier for patch reviewers What is the qemu patch review policy anyway? There are no "Reviewed-by:" included in the actual commits, and the requirement for a positive review also seem to vary a lot, up to the point that some commiters commit code that has never hit a public mailing list before.