Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RESEND2] Qemu unmaintained?

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 09/10/2009 09:29 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 19:35 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>    
>> 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<markmc@redhat.com>
>>>
>>>        
>> What would you be thinking hunting the commit log for some change and
>> coming up with this?
>>
>> (Mark, apologies for picking on you, it's truly unfair of me, but I
>> can't help it)
>>      
> As you say, I normally try very hard with my changelogs, but I don't
> think the odd joke hurts much.
>    

Jokes are fine, but the commit log is sacred.


>    - This "apply everything, test at length, reject problematic patches"
>      appears to lead to a very batchy patch flow; there's a trade off to
>      be made between trying to catch every regression before it hits the
>      tree and the delay that effort introduces before the tree gets more
>      widely tested by others
>    

For qemu.git I'd agree since it's undergoing a lot of churn.  
Unfortunately it also feeds qemu-kvm.git which I try very hard to keep 
regression-free (and finding and fixing regressions during a merge is 
quite horrible), so I'd really appreciate it if qemu.git quality didn't 
deteriorate.

(and we're quite far from catching every regression btw).

Anthony, how long are your test cycles?

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.