From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36553) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7G7h-0003Zb-3S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:01:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7G7M-0000MV-Pu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:01:56 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55628 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7G7M-0000M8-Hj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:01:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4F5E9C6D.1070101@suse.de> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:01:33 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F5E58BE.6040808@weilnetz.de> <4F5E5C49.6060900@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E66A8.5050308@weilnetz.de> <4F5E6809.1000405@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E8774.2010003@suse.de> <4F5E91CA.7040104@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4F5E91CA.7040104@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Blue Swirl , Stefan Weil , Stefano Stabellini , Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 13.03.2012 01:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 03/12/2012 06:32 PM, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: >> Take Blue's recent target-ppc fix >> 9d4df9c02866f39d3eef105033091f367cc7c29e for example: After applying >> patches on day one of FOSDEM he posted a -Werror fix, it got confirmed >> by me and Alex but wasn't applied until a week later, because apparent= ly >> no other committer dared to apply Blue's patch despite SoB and acks an= d >> people reporting the issue... Not happy. >> No doubt Alex is to blame for not catching that issue in his ppc queue= , >> but asking Alex as submaintainer to submit a PULL for a single patch >> posted by Blue as committer seems overly complicated to me! ;) >=20 > I think this is a good demonstration of what the problem is. Unclear > responsibility. Agreed. Solution is documentation of expected workflows. > I'm pretty sure that Blue thought that Alex would > handle the patch. I'm pretty sure that Alex thought Blue would handle > the patch. Alex actually asked Blue to. However from what I understand, Blue is not working on QEMU full-time, like me previously. I assume he handled the patch once he read and came around to it. It's just that no one else with commit powers reacted to the situation. The way I see it no one "owns" code in QEMU. Some people feel responsible for (or comfortable reviewing changes to) parts of QEMU, and the project scales by distributing review, testing and queuing to more such shoulders. However where a (sub)maintainer is unresponsive - and *there* I differentiate between build breakages, runtime issues and feature additions - we can't wait forever and need to adapt processes. Fixing the build within a reasonable time is one requirement, moving forward with target-mips at all is another example. It's not really that we have too few maintainers, it's that not all maintainers maintain at all times - for valid work or personal reasons - and we don't seem to have a well-working escalation mechanism beyond ping^n to handle that. Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe= rg