qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:13:54 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2

On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:

On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>   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.

In all fairness, the last build breakage I see was specific to win32, was
reported on Mar 1st, and a patch was committed on Mar 3rd.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect more than this for a breakage on
win32.

Why?

Patch came on a Thursday and was applied on a Saturday. That's pretty much one business day.

For a problem that affects very few people (and hence has very few people complaining), it seems like a reasonable response time.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]