From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46234) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YO08p-0003HS-EE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:37:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YO08k-0005HO-9S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:37:55 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]:44522) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YO08k-0005H4-2B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:37:50 -0500 Received: by lbiz12 with SMTP id z12so9311365lbi.11 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:37:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <54E4490A.2030706@parallels.com> References: <54E4490A.2030706@parallels.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:37:29 +0900 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC RFC List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Cc: QEMU Developers On 18 February 2015 at 17:10, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Can anybody explain what the reasons, politics and consequences of adding > RFC into patch header in this mailing list? I think, it is not worth to add > this information to http://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch "RFC" means "Request For Comments" and is a statement that you don't intend for your patchset to be applied to master, but would like some review on it anyway. Reasons for doing this include: * the patch depends on some pending kernel changes which haven't yet been accepted, so the QEMU patch series is blocked until that dependency has been dealt with, but is worth reviewing anyway * the patch set is not finished yet (perhaps it doesn't cover all use cases or work with all targets) but you want early review of a major API change or design structure before continuing In general, since it's asking other people to do review work on a patchset that the submitter themselves is saying shouldn't be applied, it's best to: * use it sparingly * in the cover letter, be clear about why a patch is an RFC, what areas of the patchset you're looking for review on, and why reviewers should care -- PMM