From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1dg8iN-0007jr-1Y for mharc-qemu-trivial@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:06:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53312) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg8iK-0007ht-IW for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:06:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg8iJ-0006D5-Ec for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:06:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58162) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg8iE-00066t-QI; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:06:46 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5D9E486D0; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:06:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A5D9E486D0 Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com Received: from [10.36.116.177] (ovpn-116-177.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.177]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF64517F57; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:06:30 +0000 (UTC) To: Fam Zheng , Cornelia Huck Cc: Peter Maydell , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= , Eric Blake , Richard Henderson , QEMU Trivial , QEMU Developers , Markus Armbruster , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" References: <20170728053610.15770-1-f4bug@amsat.org> <20170728053610.15770-19-f4bug@amsat.org> <87mv7aumav.fsf@linaro.org> <8e2e3aa5-4459-76ba-3309-af6b30220346@amsat.org> <87fud0vmak.fsf@linaro.org> <3e66742f-04c5-51b7-de3a-f692c0637bc5@amsat.org> <20170810104604.342af354.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170810122520.48403984.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170811075455.GC27391@lemon.lan> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <1ac44263-dc9a-b16e-df10-09253b566b1b@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:06:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170811075455.GC27391@lemon.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:06:43 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 18/47] MAINTAINERS: add missing TCG entry X-BeenThere: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:06:53 -0000 On 11/08/2017 09:54, Fam Zheng wrote: > On Thu, 08/10 12:25, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> I think the UI (giving no consideration to how we might implement >>> this!) would ideally be something like: >>> * if anybody mails a patch which touches an "unmaintained" file, >>> a robot should send a reply along the lines of "thanks for the >>> patch; unfortunately file X is not maintained so it may be >>> tricky to get patch review for this. You'll need to be >>> persistent and do more of the legwork than if you were patching >>> a file that did have an active maintainer" so contributors >>> know when they've wandered into the swamp >> >> That's a good idea. >> >>> * some mechanism for easily finding patches to unmaintained >>> files which haven't got review yet, so that anybody with some >>> spare time and interest can move some of them along (the idea >>> being to spread the load rather than trying to designate a >>> particular "owner" for this headache) >> >> Can maybe patchew set a special flag for patches that only touch >> unmaintained files? > > Interesting idea. We have a number of patch status tracking feature requests for > patchew already. We can tackle them one by one. (The next priority is implement > "merged".) Do you use github issues? Paolo