From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7P8a-0008Gl-2e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:39:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7P8B-0003j0-Ad for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:39:27 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com ([209.85.217.173]:50317) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7P8B-0003iV-0f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:39:03 -0400 Received: by lbon3 with SMTP id n3so163095lbo.4 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:39:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4F5E58BE.6040808@weilnetz.de> <4F5E5CA4.3040407@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:39:00 +0000 Message-ID: From: Stefan Hajnoczi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefan Weil , Stefano Stabellini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do >>> better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for >>> sweeping up trivial patches has been working well; maybe we >>> could use a slightly more formal qemu-urgent process for >>> flagging up build breakage etc? >>> >>> (Personally I'd support a rule that any outstanding >>> build-breakage fixes must always go in before anything else.) >> >> >> When are build-breakage fixes not trivial? > > 'trivial' implies "it's OK if this patch doesn't go in for a > week or two until the trivial patch queue has built up to > a reasonable size". Also sending them via trivial means > there's no mechanism for causing them to be applied before > other commits/pullreqs. So generally I don't cc build-fixes to > trivial. Right, I specifically do not take build-breakage fixes because trivial-patches pull requests don't happen immediately. If there is a critical problem (i.e. a build breakage), then a committer needs to take care of it so it can get merged directly. Let's not make the path longer by going via trivial-patches here. Stefan