From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43464) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFk2R-0004gt-O8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFk2K-0006Ge-7s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:44:39 -0500 Message-ID: <530355AB.5020002@suse.de> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:44:27 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1392647854-8067-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <53025C08.2030207@redhat.com> <5302B11F.1070400@suse.de> <53033261.7020100@suse.de> <5303411A.5080601@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5303411A.5080601@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] ARM: three easy patches for coverity-reported issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-stable , QEMU Developers , Patch Tracking Am 18.02.2014 12:16, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 18/02/2014 12:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> > No, we've had that topic before: It's your job as submitter and >> > maintainer to flag that appropriately in the commit message, as per >> QEMU >> > Summit 2012. >> >> I don't think this workflow works. I have no idea what >> stable's criteria are, and if you rely on people >> adding a cc you're going to miss stuff. >=20 > There isn't really a standard criterion. It's up to each maintainer to > be stricter or looser on what goes to stable. The criteria is pretty simple: Was the breakage in the last release already or was it introduced only intermittently. It simply does not scale to have Michael or other stable maintainers (mjt, me, ...) look at each commit from vX.Y to HEAD and decide whether to backport or not. That's why that task of flagging as backport *candidates* is pushed out to maintainers and recursively to authors where applicable, to reduce the number of commits to sift through and to allow to do this for actually committed patches rather than mails on the mailing list that might not get committed or change subject. What especially annoys me here is that Peter wants to play on Anthony's level on the project but is openly ignoring both our stable releases as a concept (we wouldn't need a release in the first place if we don't care about it working!) and the procedures decided in his presence at QEMU Summit (having maintainer/contributor flag it via Cc: line). If you feel the conclusion we reached there is not working out, feel free to bring this topic up on the KVM call later today - playing Rumpelstilzchen and exempting you from what everyone else is doing is not an acceptable solution. Either we all do it this way or we all decide on another way. It was not my suggestion, just a proposed solution to an issue that affects me, so I'm open to alternatives. Regards, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg