From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7CSR-0006dA-TP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:07:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7CSO-0007kp-Ls for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:07:07 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:33765) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7CSO-0007kD-Hb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:07:04 -0400 Received: by yenr5 with SMTP id r5so3572986yen.4 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F5E6572.5060604@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:06:58 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F5E58BE.6040808@weilnetz.de> <4F5E5CA4.3040407@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefan Weil , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefano Stabellini On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do >>> better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for >>> sweeping up trivial patches has been working well; maybe we >>> could use a slightly more formal qemu-urgent process for >>> flagging up build breakage etc? >>> >>> (Personally I'd support a rule that any outstanding >>> build-breakage fixes must always go in before anything else.) >> >> >> When are build-breakage fixes not trivial? > > 'trivial' implies "it's OK if this patch doesn't go in for a > week or two until the trivial patch queue has built up to > a reasonable size". Also sending them via trivial means > there's no mechanism for causing them to be applied before > other commits/pullreqs. So generally I don't cc build-fixes to > trivial. In all fairness, the last build breakage I see was specific to win32, was reported on Mar 1st, and a patch was committed on Mar 3rd. I don't think it's reasonable to expect more than this for a breakage on win32. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM