Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/11] X86 patches

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:18:01PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 02.03.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Peter Maydell:
> > On 3 March 2015 at 00:26, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> Am 02.03.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Peter Maydell:
> >>> On 26 February 2015 at 04:58, Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit 
> >>>> them
> >>>> through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :)
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Applied, thanks.
> >>
> >> Why? You yourself had objections against 08/11, no? And replacement
> >> series are already on the list.
> > 
> > Because nobody followed up to this cover letter to say "don't apply this".
> 
> That's pretty much what I replied to 04/11, and I expected you to see
> that, in particular since you were on CC and chimed in. :/
> 
> I had some of Eduardo's alternative patches queued already and will look
> into fixing this mess...

I assumed the pull request were already going to be ignored considering
all the replies. I didn't know an additional "please don't apply this"
request was necessary, sorry. :(

> 
> > I process pullreqs in first-in-first-out order and I rely on
> > submitters (or others) letting me know if there's a reason not to
> > apply something, and on people not submitting pullreqs including
> > patches which have got negative review on list :-(
> 
> In this case it was Eduardo's first pull request, with overlap between
> qom-cpu and target-i386 responsibilities and Paolo having given an Rb
> for a full APIC movement series rather than the individual patches I
> pointed out. That requires a bit more review.
> 
> Eduardo, I also notice that your tag luckily does not match the above
> description in your cover letter. That section is supposed to be filled
> in by git-request-pull from the tag, not hand-edited, and should be a
> summary of what changes the pull includes, not who reviewed it. You can
> place any additional comments above the generated template.

Yeah, I edited that text in the e-mail message only, not to the tag
description. It looks like I chose the wrong spot in the e-mail message
to add my notes and I made it look like it was the tag description.
Sorry again.

-- 
Eduardo