From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F576C433E7 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:51:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDCDE206F5 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:51:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="L4jnb2hU" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EDCDE206F5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:59552 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyDHi-0005Ux-9K for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 07:51:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyDGc-0004Zs-RR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 07:50:34 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]:42091) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jyDGb-0003rm-4C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 07:50:34 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id g37so1505553otb.9 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:50:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7c1GKLGh6kUcP0cXnDe1M01HYdzizw4NSpILlqyDRYA=; b=L4jnb2hUFm7bWdAQURCT4BedpC/uNzKyjy9GmwmFt8UcCKmRcX9hUSiaFTWeIu52GD XrF6Ki/IVbOgv35vLTzR5uiDwK9VZqBXeznW8me/9Afgu2k/e43RwMxBalkbkzFV8kGf n7JOfoy3qauV2FBlmONhHhCnW97gN7cGd2gqmnKVHIZKZoX2Xr/4Q1lAkdHmO5yGE49f w/bjcz8MdFJKWwzYauFfoH5UQS5d0O4+KnWkad+5ZRBJJ6bRSU4wa1QLTnfxVMR/TLwy MJAahsv19q8MYtQYSr8UwWwkg7jxWolVg0Vxjm+Esj8d96TbPUFiDlIt2VdFgsglodu/ yX6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7c1GKLGh6kUcP0cXnDe1M01HYdzizw4NSpILlqyDRYA=; b=nH17/d5FhLAHOrPGKKR2aJMKuvwmx2K2rGdi2YomqxT0mGFckh7oihnc1D/t09aKfd kp9CY2NnC0ZGaiA96TaQsVQwb0e+Qe0Yk8ZKr3ciW/C/0MSe5rStLhmCp9PAZYtln2LI mEOTiEpLy2CAKCpDvSc5qQOzuDXWMP4md0cVaqGQvlN1tYJ1IVMKTNNpAbVT+UoQIOL0 0oWhn0hy7qf7Sbfb3XNrK7lMHZHbbng3NsfoflIdwXQxivs7RTxU/g8iI+EJr8HEmDm3 gb/3GVEC0IkXgRzuGdKFMrUX5jPZrSSY/mpK9KPCYy47nt49upWfHftfhe/XBTyG8V2u EnKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320yQew2sNxcSf9ALcaJnL8vMuMB2ePmTkoRnYiMe/s0cVC+U3k 308ZDvUNfDpTGzttNgok0hA+e9bMsaN0x7/uWYbloQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwugeOWNorb61CBK7IVT2KtpGCb0KUULCPO+GSv3h3iUu5PysMrIWkjxpMhgs+AoicQB+LbgamqXqU5vAvU7Zw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1bd3:: with SMTP id v19mr27887160ota.91.1595418631798; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:50:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200722093621.GA4838@linux.fritz.box> In-Reply-To: <20200722093621.GA4838@linux.fritz.box> From: Peter Maydell Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:50:20 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: please try to avoid sending pullreqs late on release-candidate day To: Kevin Wolf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::335; envelope-from=peter.maydell@linaro.org; helo=mail-ot1-x335.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jason Wang , Gerd Hoffmann , QEMU Developers , Markus Armbruster Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 10:36, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 21.07.2020 um 17:56 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: > > It is not helpful if everybody sends their pullrequests late > > on the Tuesday afternoon, as there just isn't enough time in the > > day to merge test and apply them all before I have to cut the tag. > > Please, if you can, try to send pullrequests earlier, eg Monday. > > I sent the majority of my fixes for -rc1 on Friday, not the least to > give us some time in case we get a testing failure. However, the earlier > you send the pull request, the greater the chance that you get some new > patches after the pull request. In this case, the patches were only > ready Tuesday afternoon, so even sending on Monday instead of Friday > wouldn't have helped. Patches that arrive and are only ready Tuesday afternoon are naturally at risk of slipping into the next RC. That's OK. Though when we get to rc2/rc3 you should warn me when you expect that so I can make a decision about whether it's better to slip the rc by a day to wait for them. > The alternative would have been letting them wait for -rc2. I suppose > you can always says "too late" and make that decision for me, but I > wouldn't want to unnecessarily move things to a later RC. Do you think > we shouldn't send a pull request in case of doubt? Mostly what I mean is "don't assume that because RC day is Tuesday that you can send a pullreq on Tuesday and have it get into the RC". If it turns out that you have to do that, that's not a big problem. What is a problem is if half a dozen submaintainers all send a pullreq at once on the Tuesday afternoon. So in the situation where you don't anticipate anything much late arriving then send it earlier. > Can you test multiple pull requests at once? I could in theory I guess, but my scripting assumes one at once. thanks -- PMM