From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MlmfC-0007Hx-G2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:38:26 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mlmf7-0007FE-Ov for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:38:25 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48667 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mlmf7-0007F6-EJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:38:21 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f177.google.com ([209.85.221.177]:38730) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mlmf7-0005bo-1T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:38:21 -0400 Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so32677qyk.18 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AA92B7A.7010304@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:38:18 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RESEND2] Qemu unmaintained? References: <20090902074905.GB25711@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <20090909121817.GA21997@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> <4AA7A6EC.10907@codemonkey.ws> <20090910070336.GD3351@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AA90592.7080100@codemonkey.ws> <4AA90F7F.2030709@redhat.com> <4AA92122.3050103@codemonkey.ws> <4AA924AE.8060807@redhat.com> <4AA927D8.7000900@codemonkey.ws> <4AA92ADF.80003@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4AA92ADF.80003@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: Avi Kivity Cc: Amit Shah , Mark McLoughlin , Bernhard Kauer , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/10/2009 07:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> You certainly shouldn't ack patches you don't commit! >> >> >> But most spend time in staging. > > What's the percentage of patches that make it to master? For me it's > >90%. If it's too low we nned to fix that. Closer to 20% I'd say. This is largely due to multiple versions of the same series. If there's a way to improve this, that would make my life a lot easier. >> I don't like editing patches. I think it's unfair to the submitter >> to change their patch underneath of them. I'd suggest providing >> feedback on the list to people who write bad commit messages and ask >> them to write better ones. I try to limit the changes I make to >> resolving merge conflicts. > > Editing the commit log is not changing the patch. I doubt you'll be > able to get better commit messages - submitters have more immediate > perspectives than maintainers (should have). I always try to make the > log make sense a year from now (the code may change, but the commit > log won't). > > Unfairly picking on Mark (who usually writes truly excellent > changelogs, but this one is such a gem): > >> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/19] Suppress more more kraxelism >> >> Let's kick off this series with some of the more critical fixes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mark McLoughlin >> > > What would you be thinking hunting the commit log for some change and > coming up with this? Well the question is, should I/you edit this, or reject the patch requesting a better changelog? Certainly, the later is what akpm often does. Regards, Anthony Liguori