From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NFuKi-0001WF-JI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:48 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NFuKd-0001Po-Ut for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:48 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34957 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NFuKd-0001PS-H3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:43 -0500 Received: from mail-yx0-f188.google.com ([209.85.210.188]:59066) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NFuKd-0007xl-2u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:53:43 -0500 Received: by yxe26 with SMTP id 26so450779yxe.4 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:53:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4B16B483.6070605@codemonkey.ws> References: <4B16B483.6070605@codemonkey.ws> From: Artyom Tarasenko Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:53:18 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Unclear committer situation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org 2009/12/2 Anthony Liguori : > Artyom Tarasenko wrote: >> >> 2009/12/1 Alexander Graf : >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Could someone with commit rights please stand up to feel responsible fo= r >>> PPC? >>> >>> Usually, when I send a patch to qemu-devel, I know who to address to >>> increase chances of it getting committed. For kvm/vnc/block I just CC >>> Anthony, for Audio I just CC malc, etc. >>> >> >> And who can increase chances of getting committed for a scsi-related >> patch? >> I sent a patch on November, the 10th >> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/38100/), >> and it looks like it was just ignored. >> > > It's still whitespace damaged. =A0Attaching a second copy as an > application/octet does not make the situation any better. =A0Take the tim= e to > send the patch properly and someone will take the time to review/apply it= . I thought attaching a second copy were the way to send the patch properly. Is the proper way described somewhere?