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: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:09:18 +0000

On 13 March 2012 00:16, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think this is a good demonstration of what the problem is.  Unclear
> responsibility.  I'm pretty sure that Blue thought that Alex would handle
> the patch.  I'm pretty sure that Alex thought Blue would handle the patch.

Yes, this is why I suggested a 'qemu-urgent' or something so it's easy
to flag a patch up as "this is an important fix for something which
should get prompt attention and isn't expected to be going through the
long-winded process of a submaintainer tree or qemu-trivial or whatever".

> If we start saying that, Alex "owns" ppc except for things that are
> "important" like a build breakage, then we get into the ugly definition of
> what's important and what's not important.

I don't think we've had huge problems with defining "trivial" and I
don't think we'd really have big arguments about "urgent" either --
as the gatekeeper you and the other direct-committers can always use
your judgement and say 'this should go through the submaintainer tree'.

I agree completely with Alex about why urgent fixes don't mesh well with
the periodic submaintainer tree pullreq workflow. Dumping the 'urgent'
fix problem off onto submaintainers is basically asking us all to
have an extra 'foo-urgent' tree and send out single patch pullreqs,
which seems to me like a very heavyweight way of causing a patch to
be applied (plus it puts an extra person in the loop which is pretty
much guaranteed to slow things down).

[I'm not sure this is really our most pressing process issue, though.]

-- PMM



reply via email to

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