From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44397) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SVovm-0000CU-4B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 May 2012 15:03:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SVovk-0004ao-AB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 May 2012 15:03:09 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:45850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SVovk-0004aB-2Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 May 2012 15:03:08 -0400 Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so7124873obb.4 for ; Sat, 19 May 2012 12:03:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4FB27EA1.4080800@us.ibm.com> <4FB28574.1080900@weilnetz.de> <4FB28693.30205@codemonkey.ws> <4FB2BA9A.9040101@codemonkey.ws> From: Blue Swirl Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 19:02:43 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] QEMU 1.1-rc2 release List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Alexander Graf Cc: Stefan Weil , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel , Anthony Liguori On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Peter Maydell w= rote: > On 15 May 2012 21:20, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 05/15/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> In this case it is a regression... > >> At what point did it regress? =C2=A0I don't recall win64 ever working un= er 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: >>> =C2=A0(a) in your queue and will go into this rc >>> =C2=A0(b) missed the boat for this rc but will be in the next >>> =C2=A0(c) completely overlooked and needs pinging/yelling about >>> =C2=A0(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 submaintaine= r, I >> would expect the submaintainer to handle it. =C2=A0I 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 th= is >> 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 >