From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41382) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUjd1-0000Qz-JH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:15:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUjcy-0001fd-9p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:15:51 -0400 Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:58770) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUjcy-0001fW-0m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:15:48 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:15:46 -0600 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC34738C8047 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r3NKFfoc216190 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:15:42 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r3NKFdXp030308 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:15:39 -0600 Message-ID: <5176EBE9.3080204@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:15:37 -0400 From: "Michael R. Hines" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1366682139-22122-1-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87li89dtmc.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <5176CADB.4000304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87k3ntm7co.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <5176DFFD.1040202@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5176DFFD.1040202@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 00/12] rdma: migration support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: Anthony Liguori , quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, owasserm@redhat.com, Bulent Abali , Michael R Hines , Gokul B Kandiraju , pbonzini@redhat.com On 04/23/2013 03:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/23/2013 12:26 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> There are no instructions/procedures documented on the qemu.org >>> website on how to automatically generate "Reviewed-by" signatures. >> I suspect there's some confusion here. Addressed review comments != >> Reviewed-by. There can always be additional comments. Someone has to >> explicitly offer a Reviewed-by indicating that they are happy with the >> patches overall. I've gone through the history on these patches and I >> don't see any explicit Reviewed-by's other than Eric's most recent one. > Even then, my reviewed-by tag applied only to one patch (the QMP change) > rather than the series as a whole. But you definitely did the right > thing by pasting that in to the commit message of 10/12 on this round - > even though it is a bit of manual effort on your part, you were already > touching the rest of the series; and by adding the reviewed-by tag by > hand, it's easier for other reviewers to add additional reviews and/or > skip the patches that appear to already be adequately reviewed. > >> Give the series a little more time for people to look over it, it'll get >> Reviewed-bys when people are ready to offer them. > And to some extent, it's up to the maintainer of the area you are > touching to decide how many (or few) 3rd-party reviewed-by are necessary > to feel comfortable with the series. Most maintainers like at least one > other set of eyes looking at any non-trivial patch, although I'm not > sure if there are any documented policies used by any particular > maintainer (other than qemu-trivial patches have their own wiki page for > best practices). So far, your series has been a good cycle of posting, > response, and updating to meet the response; the fact that you are > getting comments from several people means that you are likely to get > reviewed-by from those people when they are happy with the end result > (or another round of comments on things to fix). And if all else fails, > if you go a week without any response at all, it is generally acceptable > to ping the maintainer to ask for help in recruiting the appropriate > reviewers and/or a decision that the maintainer's review is sufficient. > > Also, don't be surprised if not everyone reviews the entire series; > sometimes reviewers like myself focus only on the portion of the series > that interacts with my current interests (I tend to review anything QMP, > because I want to make sure the design will be sane for libvirt > interaction, while overlooking things like migration internals because > they are black box ops to libvirt if the interface was sane). > Yes, Paolo has done a fantastic job of reviewing the internals. Thanks for the advice. I don't mind waiting until 1.6. Would be helpful for new people (like myself) to have a summary of these procedures on the wiki so we don't have to bother you guys when we get to the end of the reviews. - Michael