From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46992) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFkMe-0002nh-UX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:05:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFkMV-0004AB-UZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:05:32 -0500 Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]:55109) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFkMV-0004A5-OI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:05:23 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id pv20so12431389lab.30 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:05:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <530355AB.5020002@suse.de> References: <1392647854-8067-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <53025C08.2030207@redhat.com> <5302B11F.1070400@suse.de> <53033261.7020100@suse.de> <5303411A.5080601@redhat.com> <530355AB.5020002@suse.de> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:05:02 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] ARM: three easy patches for coverity-reported issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-stable , QEMU Developers , Patch Tracking On 18 February 2014 12:44, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: > What especially annoys me here is that Peter wants to play on Anthony's > level on the project but is openly ignoring both our stable releases as > a concept (we wouldn't need a release in the first place if we don't > care about it working!) and the procedures decided in his presence at > QEMU Summit (having maintainer/contributor flag it via Cc: line). If you > feel the conclusion we reached there is not working out, feel free to > bring this topic up on the KVM call later today - playing > Rumpelstilzchen and exempting you from what everyone else is doing is > not an acceptable solution. Either we all do it this way or we all > decide on another way. It was not my suggestion, just a proposed > solution to an issue that affects me, so I'm open to alternatives. I'm just pointing out (as I do pretty much any time somebody says "hey you should have cc'd stable") that this workflow isn't working for me as a contributor or as a submaintainer. If you can document and define how it's actually supposed to work and what the policy is for what counts as a bugfix that should target stable (I couldn't find anything on the wiki) then that might help. We should probably discuss this on the call, yes. thanks -- PMM