From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37893) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1kep-00027C-NF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:57:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1kem-00025o-SA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:57:39 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:62026) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T1kem-00025a-Mt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:57:36 -0400 Received: by obbta14 with SMTP id ta14so2440594obb.4 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:57:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: References: <1345058260-16229-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <3D70C0B4-9832-40AE-9DED-1A92E92F9192@suse.de> <87ehn8rkp4.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:57:25 -0500 Message-ID: <87obmb7u16.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 for-1.2 00/27] Suppress unused default drives List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Evgeny Voevodin , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , Peter Crosthwaite , Max Filippov , "Edgar E. Iglesias" , Guan Xuetao , Igor Mitsyanko , Markus Armbruster , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= , =?utf-8?Q?Herv=C3=A9?= Poussineau , Maksim Kozlov , Stefano Stabellini , Peter Chubb , Paul Brook , Blue Swirl , Mark Langsdorf , Michael Walle , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Dmitry Solodkiy , Jan Kiszka , Aurelien Jarno Peter Maydell writes: > On 15 August 2012 20:58, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Peter Maydell writes: >>> On 15 August 2012 20:25, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> Nack from my POV. Too late for 1.2. Better get this in early for 1.3. >> >> No, it's not too late for 1.2. >> >> The release process is pretty clear. Major features needed to be posted >> before August 1st. The late to get non-bug fixes in is today. > > Yes. I don't think that means "it's OK to send out a patchset that > isn't just doing cosmetic fixes to a generally OK previous version > on the day of feature freeze and expect that people will have time > to review it". > > Basically, if this wasn't freeze day I'd expect a patchseries like this > to sit on the list for at least three days or so for review. > >> This is not a major feature but more importantly, has gone through a few >> revisions and has gotten positive review comments. > > Anything touching 50 files is "major feature" IMHO, and the first > version of this patchset went out just 6 days ago. > > Short rc phases only work if people are reasonably sensible about > not putting in enormous numbers of patches right at the freeze > deadline, IMHO. This patchset doesn't meet the "value obtained > for amount of disruption / quality of review" bar for me, is all. http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/index.cgi/tech/2007-05-04.html It's not that I disagree with you. I think this is good feedback for a series like this. I just don't want people sending out single sentence "Nack" emails for patch series just because we're at the end of the release cycle. It sets the wrong tone IMHO. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM