From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33286) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbvU8-00004u-KQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:52:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbvU2-0001Cw-K5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:52:40 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44843 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VbvU2-0001Cq-Ak for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:52:34 -0400 Message-ID: <52728ACF.9080403@suse.de> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:52:31 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1382724449-11944-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20131031140243.GA24705@zapo.xilinx.com> <527266C1.8060904@suse.de> <52726B02.8020500@suse.de> <52726D22.709@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers , Anthony Liguori , "Edgar E. Iglesias" Am 31.10.2013 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas F=E4rber wr= ote: >> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas F=E4rber = wrote: >>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas F=E4rber wrote= : >>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still p= ending >>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches sho= uld've >>>>>> gotten an Acked-by. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the >>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail >>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line. >>>> >>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-b= y >>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in >>>> exactly such a case where sender=3Dsubmaintainer should be recorded = as >>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes. >>> >>> Nope. If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:". Don't >>> make people infer your Acked-bys. >> >> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there= . >> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise. >=20 > I explicitly said that Acked-bys are useless too. >=20 > The minutes say that you said the kernel treats "Acked-bys" as "looks > good". You did say that. I *asked* about what to do with my QEMU CPU patches that only get a "looks okay" and got only positive answers for whether that should be an Acked-by and no objection, including none from you. I certainly said nothing at all about the kernel. > At no point did a "rule" get made though. The new rule you made was: no patch without Reviewed-by. Peter sending that PULL and Edgar merging it both violate that rule. No objection against a particular patch function-wise. Point is, had Peter ping'ed me before sending out that pull, he would've actually gotten a Reviewed-by from me, thereby satisfying your rule! He didn't, ignoring that he himself had actually told me to queue the patches before his vacation, for which obviously I reviewed and tested th= em. Maybe there's no obligation for picking up tags, but then again you can't go ahead and do statistics over incompletely recorded tags. Regards, Andreas >> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and >> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all, >> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I wa= s >> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to >> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as >> pull without Reviewed-by. >=20 > I think you misunderstood. >=20 > I don't care about Acked-bys. They are useless. >=20 > A third of patches are being committed with Reviewed-bys. There are > certainly many cases where patches are going in from submaintainers > that have been reviewed which comes implicitly with Signed-off-by. >=20 > But I worry that we're not reviewing enough on list and that there are > patches from maintainers going in through maintainer trees that aren't > getting outside review. >=20 > There's no immediate action for this other than we should all try to > review more patches on list to prevent the above situation. >=20 >>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have. There is no "rule" stating that >>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list. But I >>> expect that maintainers try to >> >> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have an= d >> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and >> what to do if author=3D=3Dsubmaintainer. If you dropped that thought, = then >> fine with me. >=20 > Yes, patches should get reviewed. I hope this is obvious to all of us = :-) >=20 > I also suggested that I have tooling that people can use to simplify > adding collected Reviewed-bys on the list. >=20 > But none of this has anything to do with inferred Acked-bys. I'll go > a step further and say that I would be very unhappy if anyone every > added any kind of tag to a patch with my name on it that I didn't send > myself. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Anthony Liguori >=20 >> >> Regards, >> Andreas >> >> -- >> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany >> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCr= nberg --=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