From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55150) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eme2G-0007Yk-9p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:18:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eme2B-00006u-6D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:18:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:18:10 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20180216121810.56ed961e.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Cc: Peter Maydell Hi, for 2.13 (or whatever it will be called), I'd like to switch to a submaintainer model for s390x, where maintainers for a certain s390x area (including myself) send me pull requests that I integrate into s390-next resp. s390-fixes, for which I send a pull request to merge into master. The problem here is that I don't want these sub pull requests to be picked up by Peter's scripts, generating confusion. So far, my ideas have been: - Post s390 pull requests only to qemu-s390x@nongnu.org. This sucks, as it makes part of the process intransparent to any QEMU developer not subscribed to that mailing list. - Put a certain marker into the subject, like "PULL *s390x*" or so. I'm not sure how robust that is. - Ditch the pull request idea, keep applying patches. This is not quite as bad as it sounds, as I have the infrastructure to apply patches anyway, but it hides the real workflow (and simply pulling is likely less work for me in the long run.) Thoughts? Ideas?