From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35432) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UXuJz-0005vf-0s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 10:17:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UXuJw-00024b-1o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 10:17:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51543) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UXuJv-00023x-QJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 May 2013 10:17:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 17:17:04 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20130502141704.GA12954@redhat.com> References: <20130502135143.GA1171@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] posting patches in pull requests (was Re: [PATCH 08/29] cpu: Add qemu_for_each_cpu()) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:09:04PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 2 May 2013 14:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > As it is, patchwork is full of patches that were already reviewed and > > merged, all my scripts that were filtering and sorting patches are also > > useless, and I get to wade through each patch for the second time. > > You need to fix patchwork to have some conception of a > patch series. Then you can just select the whole series > which is the pull request and say "ignore this" and you're > done. Any patch-handling tool that doesn't let you operate > at the level of a complete series is always going to mean > you're doing huge amounts of busywork sometimes. Sometimes I'm Cc'd on 1 patch out of series. I might not want to go dig out the series only to check if it actually needs review. > I don't particularly object to suggesting that pullreq > patches are all tagged 'PULL'; I don't think it's very > likely that you'll get 100% consistency out of everybody > though. > > -- PMM As there's one person that does the merges, it's pretty easy to get consistency. If you are not sending a patch for review it's just wrong to say PATCH in a subject. Or should I now ignore everything that doesn't explicitly say [PATCH pleasereview] ? -- MST