From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MPFYc-0006Ai-09 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:50:30 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MPFYX-00064w-PD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:50:29 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59781 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MPFYX-00064i-HD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:50:25 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:50882) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MPFYX-0006vB-1F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:50:25 -0400 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6ACmjJ7005707 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:48:45 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n6ACoHZS250480 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:50:17 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n6ACoHaT032245 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:50:17 -0600 Message-ID: <4A573908.5020600@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:50:16 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-iotests: make a few more tests generic References: <20090708194143.GA14640@lst.de> <4A55BF62.9070702@redhat.com> <20090709132513.GA13722@lst.de> <4A56F22A.8030406@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A56F22A.8030406@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Christoph Hellwig , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Kevin Wolf wrote: > This problem has already be found. Avi's patch from almost three weeks > ago fixes it. > Christoph posted an alternative patch and there didn't seem to be a consensus on the thread about what solution was the best one. See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/46032/match=block+clean+up+after. It's also up to the submitter to keep track of their patches. If they think one should be applied that hasn't been, they need to follow up on it. The only way to scale here is to push as much work as possible to the outer-most nodes. > It really starts to get annoying. How am I supposed to work with commits > only every other week (which is bad enough) and then patches are > forgotten and probably won't be merged before another two weeks? I guess > I should manage some local tree with fixes myself and move away from > basing my work on git master... > Complaining is all well and good but it doesn't help the problem. Your particular compliant is about a patch that fixes a problem another patch introduced. Greater patch velocity == greater instability because there isn't an adequate amount of testing going on. It takes time to do proper testing and review of patches. It would be very helpful if you proactively tested/reviewed patches on the mailing list and then commented appropriately. People adding Tested-by tags to patches on the list would be a great help for instance. -- Regards, Anthony Liguori