Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] QEMU 1.1-rc2 release

[Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 15 May 2012 21:20, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>> On 05/15/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> In this case it is a regression...
>
>> At what point did it regress?  I don't recall win64 ever working uner TCG...
>
> Sorry, I had in mind the mmap thing, and got confused with what
> I was quoting.
>
>>> Anyway, my point is not "these things must go in" but that it's very
>>> hard to tell from this side whether a patch is in the state:
>>>  (a) in your queue and will go into this rc
>>>  (b) missed the boat for this rc but will be in the next
>>>  (c) completely overlooked and needs pinging/yelling about
>>>  (d) judged not important enough to justify fixing in this release
>>
>> It's it not tagged '1.1' than I am not considering it for 1.1.
>>
>> If it's tagged with 1.1 *and* in a subsystem with an active submaintainer, I
>> would expect the submaintainer to handle it.  I do keep track of it though
>> until someone responds with "Thanks, Applied." and will follow up with
>> patches that fall into this category.
>
>> If you've posted a patch for 1.1 and it's a couple days old without
>> feedback, then you probably should ping the appropriate maintainer about it.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't see any pending 1.1 patches from you so I don't know if this
>> is a theoretical concern or a practical one.
>
> My current concern is
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/158556/
> (submitted by Alex, although I see he forgot to tag it with "1.1").

Thanks, applied.

>
> I'll ping it...
>
> -- PMM
>