Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 03/13/2012 11:09 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > If we start saying that, Alex "owns" ppc except for things that are
> > "important" like a build breakage, then we get into the ugly definition of
> > what's important and what's not important.
>
> I don't think we've had huge problems with defining "trivial" and I
> don't think we'd really have big arguments about "urgent" either --
> as the gatekeeper you and the other direct-committers can always use
> your judgement and say 'this should go through the submaintainer tree'.
>
> I agree completely with Alex about why urgent fixes don't mesh well with
> the periodic submaintainer tree pullreq workflow. Dumping the 'urgent'
> fix problem off onto submaintainers is basically asking us all to
> have an extra 'foo-urgent' tree and send out single patch pullreqs,
> which seems to me like a very heavyweight way of causing a patch to
> be applied 


Not at all.  I have a memory/core branch and a memory/urgent branch --
it's trivial to maintain them with git, and quite often I send a 1-patch
pull request.  There's no material difference between sending a patch
and sending a pull request (except if you use git.kernel.org, ugh), and
it does guarantee you priority handing.

> (plus it puts an extra person in the loop which is pretty
> much guaranteed to slow things down).

Having the committers process all these patches (and monitor all
patches) is guaranteed to slow things down too.  We have maintainers who
are supposed to be experts in their area, and who are supposed to have
an interest in keeping their subsystem working, let them also take care
of build problems in their area of responsibility.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function