From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MtTn5-00034v-KG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:06:23 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MtTn0-00032W-UJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:06:23 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46934 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MtTn0-00032T-QK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:06:18 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:11063) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MtTn0-00020C-AN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:06:18 -0400 Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.145]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MtTmz-0007qE-QH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:06:17 -0400 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so175208qwc.4 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AC527D6.2050609@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:06:14 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4AC51C70.2030006@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4AC51C70.2030006@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Commit 99a0949 (using the mailing list) List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: malc , Paul Brook Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Anthony Liguori wrote: > I've reverted 99a0949. It's not necessarily a bad change to make but > something that's so invasive as that absolutely requires some > discussion before hand. Avoiding "bike-shedding" is not a valid > argument for avoiding the list. > > For instance, I find the naming to be truly awful and would have liked > some discussion on a more reasonable naming convention. > > I have a very large set of patches in my queue (over 200) that I'm > testing and trying to commit. A lot of other people do. If we're > going to make a change like this, it's very important to coordinate > with people so that they can flush their queues and avoid massive > merge head-ache. After talking to malc, I have to take a fair bit of the blame here. I made a comment in another thread that I thought that this sort of change was a good idea. While I do think it's a good idea, I could have been more clear that it was a change that needed some more planning and discussion. Regards, Anthony Liguori