From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43674) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjMew-0005Vw-FD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:09:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjMev-0005B1-8g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:09:30 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:63361) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjMev-0005Aq-1e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:09:29 -0500 Received: by pbdd3 with SMTP id d3so1725022pbd.4 for ; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:09:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F075CC2.6010700@us.ibm.com> References: <4F071111.6080306@us.ibm.com> <4F075371.4060904@web.de> <4F075CC2.6010700@us.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 03:09:27 +0000 Message-ID: From: Peter Maydell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU Code Audit Team List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Chris Wright , Stefan Hajnoczi , Stefan Weil , Corey Bryant , qemu-devel , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= , Avi Kivity On 6 January 2012 20:42, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/06/2012 02:02 PM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >> i) Unless it's a build fix, I propose defining a minimum review time >> before a patch is applied to a (sub)maintainer's queue. > I disagree here. =C2=A0If anything, I think we wait a bit too long for pe= ople to > review things and that prevents progress. Actually I think it would be useful to agree on a "standard" time for this kind of thing. A lot of the ARM related patches I do don't get review, and it would be nice to know how long it's sensible to wait until I can submit them in a pull request. (I don't want to cut short time for people to review, but I don't want them languishing on the list for weeks either...) >> Or should a PULL generally be re-reviewed within a >> fixed timeframe, questionmark? We shouldn't be rereviewing pull requests -- they should be basically equivalent to actual tree commit. >> It would be nice to have a more explicit process of who pulls from whom >> and how this is handled during maintainers' absences - especially when >> approaching a release. Agreed. In particular it would be nice to have a definite nominated person who I ought to send target-arm pullreqs to, since all I know for sure is that it's not Anthony :-) -- PMM