qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:37:39 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4845AB93.2050005@codemonkey.ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18501.23962.985598.92661@mariner.uk.xensource.com>

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Brook writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion"):
>   
>> I'd just like to point out that committing patches is easy. The hard
>> (and time consuming) bit is identifying, rejecting, fixing and/or
>> making constructive comments on all the bogus patches. The are lots
>> of patches that fall into this latter category, e.g. patches that
>> have clearly only ever been tested on x86 targets.
>>     
>
> Yes.
>
>   
>>  It doesn't take any special privileges to do this patch review.
>>     
>
> That's true, but it doesn't tell the whole story.  Anyone can
> criticise a patch (and we do).  But while review by a non-committer is
> very helpful, it still doesn't mean that the committer doesn't have to
> do review of their own.  After all the committer is actually the
> gatekeeper and has the personal responsibility to commit good code.
>
> Also, review and improvement of patches by non-committer contributors
> depends on the contributors' expectation that patch will be accepted
> when it is good.  There is no point in people reviewing and commenting
> on and improving patches if the maintainers don't have the time or
> inclination to get those refined patches actually reviewed by them and
> committed.
>   

Here's a couple things I notice that often cause a patch to be dropped:

1) It has something wrong, but not sufficiently interesting enough for 
anyone to offer feedback

2) It has something wrong, there's a thread with discussion and 
resubmissions of the patch, and the thread eventually cools off with a 
patch people are happy with

3) It's lost in the noise

#3 is something that happens.  A contributer has to resend patches to 
any project.  I don't think this happens very often on QEMU.

More often, I think the problem is #1.  This is something that we all 
can fix by just reviewing patches.  This has been an important issue for 
a while now and I'm willing to dedicate a portion of my time to 
reviewing patches.  For anyone submitting a patch to qemu-devel, feel 
free to CC me to make sure I review it.  I'm not saying that my review 
will guarantee acceptance, but I will keep track of patches I've reviewed.

#2 is a process problem.  It's unclear in this sort of thread, who's 
happy with the patch, and whether a conclusion has been reached.  The 
best thing to do is here to make use of Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags and 
to resubmit the patch as a top-level posting once consensus has been 
reached.

With a few more people dedicating time to patch review I think we can 
improve things quite a bit.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-06-03 20:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-06-03  5:42 [Qemu-devel] An organizational suggestion Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN)
2008-06-03  9:27 ` Ian Jackson
2008-06-03 10:00   ` Jamie Lokier
2008-06-03 10:19     ` Ian Jackson
2008-06-03 11:03       ` Jamie Lokier
2008-06-03 12:32         ` Ian Jackson
2008-06-03 13:01           ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2008-06-03 14:26             ` Jamie Lokier
2008-06-03 22:24           ` [Qemu-devel] " Anthony Liguori
2008-06-03 13:45       ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-06-03 14:02         ` Ian Jackson
2008-06-03 14:35           ` Paul Brook
2008-06-03 14:41             ` Jamie Lokier
2008-06-03 14:55               ` Paul Brook
2008-06-03 15:14                 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-06-03 14:54             ` Laurent Vivier
2008-06-03 15:04             ` Ian Jackson
2008-06-03 15:17               ` Jamie Lokier
2008-06-03 15:27                 ` Ian Jackson
2008-06-03 16:54                   ` Anthony Liguori
2008-06-03 19:26                   ` Jamie Lokier
2008-06-03 15:24               ` Laurent Vivier
2008-06-03 20:37               ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
2008-06-03 20:27           ` Anthony Liguori
2008-06-03 10:23     ` Andreas Färber
2008-06-03 11:09       ` [Qemu-devel] " Jan Kiszka
2008-06-03 12:36         ` Ian Jackson
2008-06-03 12:48           ` Daniel P. Berrange
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-06-03 10:11 [Qemu-devel] " Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN)
2008-06-03 15:36 Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN)
2008-06-03 16:59 ` Andreas Färber

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4845AB93.2050005@codemonkey.ws \
    --to=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).