From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40780) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7DAL-0004Sr-GR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:52:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7DAJ-0001yq-9K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:52:29 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:41573) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7DAJ-0001yZ-2i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:52:27 -0400 Received: by dadp14 with SMTP id p14so6987367dad.4 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F5E7015.3030009@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:52:21 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F5E58BE.6040808@weilnetz.de> <4F5E5CA4.3040407@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E6572.5060604@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E6712.2040501@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E6DA5.3000505@weilnetz.de> In-Reply-To: <4F5E6DA5.3000505@weilnetz.de> 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: Stefan Weil Cc: Peter Maydell , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefano Stabellini On 03/12/2012 04:41 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 12.03.2012 22:13, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> 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. > > Do you have numbers? As far as I know, more people are using Windows than Linux. > > Ok, there are more QEMU developers which work on Linux than on Windows, > but that's no reason why w32 build fixes are less important. It's not that someone is seeing a w32 build fix and saying, oh, this is less important, I'm going to ignore it. Believe it or not, it may take 1-2 days just to notice the patch. qemu-devel gets an awful lot of traffic these days. > Many Linux developers will simply fix a broken build in their local tree. > Windows developers expect that everything works out of the box, > without manually changing the source code. > > => All patches which fix broken build are equal. Why is a broken build worse than a bug that affects functionality? Regards, Anthony Liguori >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori > >