From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51748)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RkedT-0006Hn-Ea
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:33:24 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RkedN-0008DF-K9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:33:19 -0500
Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:63039)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas.faerber@web.de>) id 1RkedN-0008D2-A1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:33:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0C67E2.5020109@web.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:31:30 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4F071111.6080306@us.ibm.com> <4F075371.4060904@web.de>
	<4F075CC2.6010700@us.ibm.com>
	<CAFEAcA_n_QnwK_3_0Qaf7e3f6anYpkafT20ctLgnCRQsZOd+mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJSP0QXMQugrZOO5vtxychpWQKWTAzjUhCiwjWFYpUZfsq7p1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F0C360A.2090100@redhat.com> <4F0C3B85.7030600@us.ibm.com>
	<4F0C3E0C.1020408@redhat.com> <4F0C3F9F.3060302@web.de>
	<CAFEAcA_VUgbKZucNYHX-oOV-q+KxT2q5BgW5Xwczb=1-0wKY2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_VUgbKZucNYHX-oOV-q+KxT2q5BgW5Xwczb=1-0wKY2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU Code Audit Team
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, Corey Bryant <coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>

Am 10.01.2012 16:41, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 10 January 2012 13:39, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de> wrote:
>> If you want an incentive, just put up a rule that every patch needs to
>> be reviewed by at least the submaintainer and one person apart from the
>> author (i.e., SoB + RB/AB + SoB). If a patch is lacking that additional
>> review, the author will ping the list.
> 
> Were you volunteering to do that extra review for everybody?

I have been quite a lot since doing virtualization full-time, haven't I?

I'm not volunteering for the block branch though, that's still dark
magic to me!

> It's hard enough getting one review, let alone two...

Given and take... so back to Kevin's proposal after all. ;)

/-F