From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54216) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7CZ8-0004yd-Ef for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:14:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7CZ6-0000ma-Hm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:14:02 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:63869) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7CZ6-0000k3-Dv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:14:00 -0400 Received: by yhoo21 with SMTP id o21so3591220yho.4 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F5E6712.2040501@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:13:54 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F5E58BE.6040808@weilnetz.de> <4F5E5CA4.3040407@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E6572.5060604@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: malc Cc: Peter Maydell , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefano Stabellini , Stefan Weil On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> 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. > > Why? Patch came on a Thursday and was applied on a Saturday. That's pretty much one business day. For a problem that affects very few people (and hence has very few people complaining), it seems like a reasonable response time. Regards, Anthony Liguori