qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] ARM: three easy patches for coverity-report


From: Andreas Färber
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] ARM: three easy patches for coverity-reported issues
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:44:27 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

Am 18.02.2014 12:16, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 18/02/2014 12:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > No, we've had that topic before: It's your job as submitter and
>> > maintainer to flag that appropriately in the commit message, as per
>> QEMU
>> > Summit 2012.
>>
>> I don't think this workflow works. I have no idea what
>> stable's criteria are, and if you rely on people
>> adding a cc you're going to miss stuff.
> 
> There isn't really a standard criterion.  It's up to each maintainer to
> be stricter or looser on what goes to stable.

The criteria is pretty simple: Was the breakage in the last release
already or was it introduced only intermittently.

It simply does not scale to have Michael or other stable maintainers
(mjt, me, ...) look at each commit from vX.Y to HEAD and decide whether
to backport or not. That's why that task of flagging as backport
*candidates* is pushed out to maintainers and recursively to authors
where applicable, to reduce the number of commits to sift through and to
allow to do this for actually committed patches rather than mails on the
mailing list that might not get committed or change subject.

What especially annoys me here is that Peter wants to play on Anthony's
level on the project but is openly ignoring both our stable releases as
a concept (we wouldn't need a release in the first place if we don't
care about it working!) and the procedures decided in his presence at
QEMU Summit (having maintainer/contributor flag it via Cc: line). If you
feel the conclusion we reached there is not working out, feel free to
bring this topic up on the KVM call later today - playing
Rumpelstilzchen and exempting you from what everyone else is doing is
not an acceptable solution. Either we all do it this way or we all
decide on another way. It was not my suggestion, just a proposed
solution to an issue that affects me, so I'm open to alternatives.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg



reply via email to

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