From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48852) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7Gi2-0001Pj-9K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:39:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7Gi0-0007Xi-IZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:39:29 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:46653) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7Gi0-0007XT-CV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:39:28 -0400 Received: by dadp14 with SMTP id p14so69365dad.4 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F5EA544.2030600@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:39:16 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori 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> <4F5E9C6D.1070101@suse.de> 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: Alexander Graf Cc: Blue Swirl , Stefan Weil , Stefano Stabellini , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On 03/12/2012 08:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > Let's take a real world example from Linux here. 3.3-rc5 had a pretty nasty compile bug that made the build break on any 32 bit target when autofs was activated. I posted the bug plus a small bugfix upstream. We have a different model than Linux. The development tree is only open for a short period of time followed by RCs. Our development tree is open for a long time. There isn't as great a sense of urgency to fix things out-of-band when you're talking about an active development cycle. If we were in -rc, it'd be a completely different discussion. Really, the issue here is communication. The default assumption is that a subsystem is owned by the subsystem maintainer. If you want a patch to go through another channel, just say so. It happens constantly. It's very normal for people to ask me to apply a patch directly instead of doing a PULL request. But honestly, if we made a habit of cherry picking patches in areas with an active maintainer, we would now be talking about how we don't respect subsystems. Regards, Anthony Liguori