From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jtmkk-0001WI-JI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 12:44:26 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jtmkj-0001Ul-1y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 12:44:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41446 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jtmki-0001UX-Q8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 12:44:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jtmki-0004vk-FG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 May 2008 12:44:24 -0400 Message-ID: <4821DB4E.8000806@suse.de> Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 18:39:42 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [4367] Align file accesses with cache=off (Kevin Wolf, Laurent Vivier) References: <4820D905.4020407@bellard.org> <48216579.3060204@suse.de> <20080507123733.GA2822@shareable.org> <4821A8F0.9070506@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Blue Swirl schrieb: > I still think it is a waste > of resources if the effort made for the patches gets lost or don't get > much review like what is happening here very often. Thank you, there's nothing more to add. This is exactly what I meant. > Usually I run a set of tests before committing. From the amount of > breakage fixes and reverts I get the impression that some of the other > developers test less. Though testing will not catch all deeper > problems like in this case. My impression is that most of the commiters only commit their own patches (maybe with the exception of Aurelien), but don't want to bother with patches from ordinary mailing list subscribers. In comparison to other projects, it's quite difficult to get something into qemu and I'd not be surprised if this is discouraging people from doing qemu development at all. Apropos revert... ;-) The patch didn't break anything previously working, it's just that previously completely broken functionality might still be slightly broken. And I've already posted a patch for the recursion problem, so I would have preferred committing that one on top over reverting the whole thing. Kevin