Re: Survey Results - Part 1 : Improving Xen Project Governance and Conventions

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 06:25 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 06.10.15 at 12:26, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Now arguably any maintainer of a piece of libxl ought to be familiar with
> > all of that. But, personally I don't think that is very reasonable either
> > as a burden for those feature maintainers or particularly as a strategy for
> > ensuring the library remains coherent.
> 
> Agreed. But rather than always requiring multiple acks, wouldn't it be
> more reasonable for the "small" maintainer to explicitly request an ack
> from the "large" one in such cases?

I suppose it requires the feature maintainer to be more aware of the
library level stuff, i.e. aware enough of those issues to know when to ask.

But that's a bit of a lame answer and I think it could reasonably be
expected, so it's not all that different I guess.

I'm not sure what proportion of feature patches to libxl would require
taking this "trap" to the library maintainers, my gut says it would be that
it is more often than not.

Ian.