From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"KVM devel mailing list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"Juan Quintela" <quintela@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
"Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesda, August 28th
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:59:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87txvm94ag.fsf@codemonkey.ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120828192800.GV2886@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:15:30PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> >> Am 28.08.2012 16:27, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:55:56PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> >> On 28 August 2012 14:30, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> - 1.2 branching, or creation of a "cpu-next" tree where "good to be
>> >> >>> merged" patches can live until 1.2 is done;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With 1.3 due for release in just over a week, it seems unlikely
>> >> >> that it's worth branching at this point...
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, the closer to the release, the smaller the cost of branching as we
>> >> > won't have many patches entering the 1.2 branch, anyway.
>> >>
>> >> The idea behind the new release model is to never branch for releases,
>> >> so that we can easily bisect between v1.2 and v1.3, both tags being on
>> >> the same branch. So I don't think a 1.2 branch is likely.
>> >
>> > That means that every branch to be merged after 1.2 has to be rebased on
>> > top of 1.2 before being merged?
>>
>> I'd prefer not to do next trees unless it's for a clear subsystem that
>> already exists and will continue to exist.
>>
>> If someone wants to be a CPU subsystem maintainer, that's great, and we
>> can keep the tree open regardless of the release. But just having a
>> temporary tree for 3 weeks is more pain than it's worth.
>
> How exactly this would cause pain? I am already maintaining a branch for
> myself with a huge list of patches, to be able to continue working on
> things I want to send to 1.3.
>
> The difference is that in addition to that, I am willing to gather the
> patches that seem to be "ready to go" on a more stable branch, and send
> them as a single pull request (or even a plain patch series by mail) to
> the list once 1.2 is out.
Patches sent during the release window usually don't have enough so just
pulling them sort of defeats the purpose.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
> --
> Eduardo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-28 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-27 22:54 [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesda, August 28th Juan Quintela
2012-08-28 13:30 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-08-28 13:43 ` Juan Quintela
2012-08-28 13:48 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-08-28 13:55 ` Peter Maydell
2012-08-28 14:27 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-08-28 17:59 ` Andreas Färber
2012-08-28 18:03 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-08-28 19:15 ` Anthony Liguori
2012-08-28 19:28 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-08-28 19:59 ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87txvm94ag.fsf@codemonkey.ws \
--to=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=quintela@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).