qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/42] rework input handling, sdl2 support


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/42] rework input handling, sdl2 support
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:30:30 +0000

On 28 January 2014 09:56, Gerd Hoffmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> The input layer moves to a model modeled roughly after the linux
> event layer.  It also uses qapi to create all the data types needed.
> First, because it is convinient to have all the support code generated,
> and also to make it easier to integrate with qmp some day.
>
> Porting work has only be done on the UI side so far.  Input device
> emulation is still to be done.
>
> SDL2 consists of dave's original patch with a bunch of cleanups on
> top.  Some of the cleanups depend on the new input layer code, thus
> the incremental patches are sprinkled all over the patch series for
> bisectability reasons.
>
> v2 fixes a few minor nits pointed out in v1 review.
>
> Pull request has the cocoa build fix from Peter squashed in
> and is otherwise identical to v2.
>
> please pull,
>   Gerd
>
> The following changes since commit 0169c511554cb0014a00290b0d3d26c31a49818f:
>
>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'qemu-kvm/uq/master' into staging (2014-01-24 
> 15:52:44 -0800)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
>
>   git://git.kraxel.org/qemu tags/pull-input-1
>
> for you to fetch changes up to 19f3059690bbb1ca6af8277bf262e4b9aea13f8f:
>
>   input: remove index_from_keycode (no users) (2014-01-28 10:47:54 +0100)

This is a rather large series of patches none of which seem
to have had any review, and several of which are missing their
Signed-off-by: lines. I'm afraid I can't apply it (for the
missing signoffs if nothing else).

I know we have trouble sometimes getting sufficient review
for patches, and I've submitted pull requests with patches
without reviewed-by lines myself in the past when the patches
had sat about on list for a few weeks untouched. But isn't
anybody willing to review this?

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

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