[Qemu-devel] Re: commit rules for common git tree

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:12:57PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 06:40:31PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:23:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > Likewise, if you see a patch go in that you think would have benefited  
> > > > from being on the list, point it out.
> > > 
> > > How *would* I see it? I guess I could write scripts that correlated git
> > > logs (or qemu commit list if it is ever resurrected) with mailing list
> > > archive.  If patch is not there, look in mailing list around the time
> > > for a hint: could have explanation in the discussion. Or maybe it is
> > > part of a series someone pushed ... you get the point.
> > > 
> > 
> > All those commit have a single Signed-of-by: line. That decreases the
> > number of patches to take.
> > 
> > Anyway I still don't really understand you are trying to achieve here,
> > and without pointing to real problems, I am not sure we are going to
> > understand.
> 
> What would you call real problems?
> - You listed complains 3 times as an issue for committers.
>   Is this a problem worth solving? I think my suggestions
>   will help solve it.

This has nothing to do with "all patches should be submitted to the
mailing list first"

> - Even codewise: it's not uncommon for commit X to revert commit Y by
>   another person, at least partially. I can point them out
>   privately, prefer not to do it publically. This hurts git bisect and
>   generally makes following history harder.  Unavoidable but seems less
>   common with reviewed patches.

Then those are the real problem, and should be avoided. Pointing the
people that they should not commit patches like that is the way to go
IMHO.

> > The life of committers is not really easy, and the patch submitters do
> > not really help to improve it:
> > - a lot of patches are only reviewed by the committers, not so many
> >   persons send Acked-by: mails.
> > - you have to deal with code you don't understand
> > - you have to track continuously respined series (with patches moving
> >   from one to another, being merged or changing title)
> > - you get complains when you review a patch
> > - you get complains when you don't review a patch fast enough
> > - you get complains after you applied a patch
> > - etc...
> 
> Most complaints are result of somewhat opaque nature of the commit
> process.  For example, people would complain "where's my patch" often to
> be said: it is applied, not yet pushed. Sending mail "applied thanks"
> would solve this.  I am suggesting making it more transparent and reduce
> number of complaints. Thus life of committers will become easier :).
> 

I don't get this kind of complains very often.

I get complains because:
- I don't review patches fast enough. Here other people can help by
  reviewing the patches and sending an Acked-by:
- I have applied a patch that breaks something. It get even worse when
  the patch has been committed sometimes ago and the patch submitter has
  disappear. Again other people can help reviewing patches to catch
  common mistakes.

If others make efforts sharing the load a bit, I am fine making efforts.
Otherwise no.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
address@hidden                 http://www.aurel32.net