From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47940)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1YnRIR-0001ba-3p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:41:00 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1YnRIN-0007YK-UZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:40:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40141)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1YnRIN-0007YF-Pk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:40:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:40:53 -0400
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150429084053.666500df@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5540CFC4.2070903@redhat.com>
References: <1428206887-7921-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com>
	<87618gnyex.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<553FC888.6090305@redhat.com>
	<87fv7jfn0f.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<5540CFC4.2070903@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 00/36] drop qapi nested structs
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, berto@igalia.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:34:12 -0600
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 04/29/2015 12:48 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > General question first: through which tree should this go?
> > 
> > MAINTAINERS doesn't cover the QAPI generators.  Closest related stanza
> > is QAPI (Luiz, Michael R.).  Should it cover the generators?  Next
> > closest is QAPI Schema (Luiz, you, myself).
> > 
> > For completeness: because we touch qmp_query_pci_bridge() and
> > qmp_query_pci_devices(), get_maintainers.pl also fingers the PCI tree.
> > 
> > If nobody objects, I can take it through my tree.  Cc'ing the
> > maintainers just mentioned to give them a chance to chime in.

I not only don't object, but I support this!

> Works for me, but that means we may want to also add the qapi generators
> into MAINTAINERS along-side QAPI Schema for future changes.  Of course,
> as a separate patch.

Makes a lot of sense to me. Just CC me so that I'm aware which parts
of QMP/QAPI you guys are taking.

> >> Easier as a followup? Respin just the one patch? Or bite the bullet and
> >> rebase the entire series (fixing the other trivial items and adding R-b
> >> along the way)?
> > 
> > I think we can either
> > 
> > * Respin, but keep the changes really simple.  Feel free to leave some
> >   issues to followup patches.
> 
> Changes in the qapi schema (new structs) require a rebase, so respin on
> its way.
>