From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NFlD2-0002lj-Tx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:09:16 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NFlCx-0002io-Qk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:09:16 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55040 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NFlCx-0002ih-Aq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:09:11 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1025) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NFlCw-0005WE-Qh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:09:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4B162EA7.4090601@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:08:55 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Unclear committer situation References: <20091202082612.GU2310@hall.aurel32.net> In-Reply-To: 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: Alexander Graf Cc: Blue Swirl , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Aurelien Jarno On 12/02/2009 10:37 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 02.12.2009, at 09:26, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > >> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 12:47:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Could someone with commit rights please stand up to feel responsible for >>> PPC? >>> >>> Usually, when I send a patch to qemu-devel, I know who to address to >>> increase chances of it getting committed. For kvm/vnc/block I just CC >>> Anthony, for Audio I just CC malc, etc. >>> >>> There are some subsystems where nobody feels responsible though, >>> apparently hoping 'someone else' will tske on it. Well, turns out it >>> doesn't work that way. >>> >>> So could we please assign a committer for every subsystem around? Even >>> if the committer doesn't know the architecture inside out, it's still >>> valuable to have soneone feel responsible at all. Committer and >>> maintainer also don't have to be the same person. I'll gladly maintain >>> S390 without having commit rights - as long as I have someone to CC and >>> know the patches will get merged. >>> >>> >> I also try to follow the ppc architecture, though less than mips and >> also depending on my free time. I know that Blue Swirl and Malc also >> care about it. >> > Right - which makes it pretty hard. IMHO it's always best to have a single person to talk to when it comes to committing and others who comment on patches. > > In fact, I even believe that the person committing stuff doesn't have to know the stuff he commits. If I make a patch that breaks S390 and someone commits it, it's my fault breaking it - not the committer's. If I do a patch breaking PPC KVM, it's my fault breaking it, not the committer's. And with fault I also mean "responsibility to fix". > Breakage is simple. This difficult stuff is keeping the code maintainable. > >> It's not impossible that I miss patches given the current patches rate >> on the mailing list, so don't hesitate to Cc: me. On the other hand, I >> don't really feel comfortable with KVM related patches, I would prefer >> to see them committed by Anthony. >> > Avi, can I get PPC KVM patches in through you then? I guess you're the closest person to the code in question. > Sure. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function