From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57248) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eme90-0004Fm-UI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eme8z-0005TJ-U8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:34 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]:35106) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eme8z-0005Sf-Nu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:25:33 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id y4so1892594oix.2 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 03:25:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180216121810.56ed961e.cohuck@redhat.com> References: <20180216121810.56ed961e.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:25:12 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Process] QEMU submaintainers and pull requests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: QEMU Developers , qemu-s390x On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck wrote: > Hi, > > for 2.13 (or whatever it will be called), I'd like to switch to a > submaintainer model for s390x, where maintainers for a certain s390x > area (including myself) send me pull requests that I integrate into > s390-next resp. s390-fixes, for which I send a pull request to merge > into master. > > The problem here is that I don't want these sub pull requests to be > picked up by Peter's scripts, generating confusion. So far, my ideas > have been: > > - Post s390 pull requests only to qemu-s390x@nongnu.org. This sucks, as > it makes part of the process intransparent to any QEMU developer not > subscribed to that mailing list. > - Put a certain marker into the subject, like "PULL *s390x*" or so. I'm > not sure how robust that is. > - Ditch the pull request idea, keep applying patches. This is not quite > as bad as it sounds, as I have the infrastructure to apply patches > anyway, but it hides the real workflow (and simply pulling is likely > less work for me in the long run.) The block folks are already doing this, so we should just formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point of view as long as there's something I can easily filter in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!) I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ? thanks -- PMM