qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 23/25] qom: add realized property


From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 23/25] qom: add realized property
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:36:29 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1

Il 05/04/2012 14:04, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
> Am 03.04.2012 15:03, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> Il 03/04/2012 14:11, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
>>> Since this patch is clearly an extended version of my realize patch
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/148752/, it should carry my SoB, as
>>> reminded last night. If you don't want my SoB on the parts I didn't do -
>>> namely unrealize and *_childen - then feel free to split the patch in
>>> two. Simply dropping attribution in both cover letter and commit just
>>> because I didn't get around yet to sending a v2 with those requests
>>> addressed is not nice!
>>
>> Technically it's not, because I redid it from scratch (I never even had
>> time to really look at your patches beyond reading the commit message,
>> and I did this part while I didn't even have network access).
> 
> That's just as lame an accuse

(Did you mean excuse?)  It's a fact, not an excuse.  Do I need to show
the two patches side-by-side?  That would be even more ridiculous.

But I can very well add a SoB on v2.

> as Fabrice's when he "redid" a patch of rth back in CVS days.

Wasn't there, sorry.

> You were around on IRC on March 23rd when I
> offered to aliguori to put together a patch for realize (which I am
> using in my qom-cpu-sh4 series).

Well, I'm always around, that doesn't mean I always have time to read it.

> I was fair to cc you and Anthony on it, to avoid clashes between those
> of us working on QOM, you commented on my series, so you have read part
> of it; yet you announce the day before your series that you are going to
> send realize and ignore my request to not forget my SoB if you do.
> That makes me think that you're deliberately trying to keep my code 
> contribution out of the picture there, whereas Anthony has stated in
> the context of unicore32 that rewriting someone's contribution to get
> that person's authorship out of the way were not acceptable.

You're assuming I read your patches, which is not the case beyond seeing
that the realize didn't propagate.  There's really nothing deliberate,
and it's quite surprising to me to hear tones escalating so quickly.

Paolo



reply via email to

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