From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42735) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emf7n-0007rx-Qi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:28:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emf7k-0006CT-Mv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 07:28:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:28:08 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20180216132808.562dc547.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20180216121810.56ed961e.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , qemu-s390x On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:25:12 +0000 Peter Maydell wrote: > On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > 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.) > > The block folks are already doing this, so we should just > formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point > of view as long as there's something I can easily filter > in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused > (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time > a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!) > I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with > 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ? Yes, "PULL SUBSYSTEM " looks reasonable.