Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 6/6] MAINTAINERS: Remove obsolete stable branches

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:27:58AM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> Quoting Paolo Bonzini (2017-01-10 10:45:02)
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/01/2017 17:34, Michael Roth wrote:
> > > Quoting Thomas Huth (2017-01-10 01:54:40)
> > >> On 10.01.2017 04:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:11:43AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >>>> There are only very old and orphaned stable branches listed
> > >>>> in the MAINTAINERS file - so this section is pretty useless
> > >>>> nowadays. Let's remove it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Reviewed-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Could you add some kind of entry for stable though?
> > >>> Otherwise people won't know which address to CC.
> > >>
> > >> I think that's a question to Michael Roth - whether such an entry should
> > >> be added and how it should look like.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, not sure how to make this very readable. Something like this
> > > perhaps?
> > > 
> > > Stable branches
> > > ---------------
> > > Current M.(N-1) Stable Branch (e.g. v2.8 if latest M.N.0 release was 
> > > v2.9.0)
> > > M: Michael Roth <address@hidden>
> > > L: address@hidden
> > > T: git git://git.qemu-project.org/qemu.git stable-M.(N-1)
> > > S: Supported
> > 
> > I would just say
> > 
> > Stable branches
> > ---------------
> > Current Stable Branch (e.g. v2.8 if latest M.N.0 release was v2.9.0)
> > M: Michael Roth <address@hidden>
> > L: address@hidden
> > S: Supported
> > 
> > Is the stable git tree used in practice, except in the days right before
> > a release?
> 
> Generally not on my end, but it's possible downstreams make use of them
> as a means to just grab the latest stable release (though I don't know if
> this is actually the case or not). I agree that having it in MAINTAINERS
> isprobably of limited usefulness though.
> 
> I *would* like to have a fairly consistent tree that's updated more regularly
> that people could target for backports and such, but that would probably
> be via my stable-N.M-staging tree on github. Perhaps I should point
> people there instead? Unfortunately that still requires some amount of
> variable substitution.

Do you need multiple trees? Why not have branches?

> > 
> > Paolo
> > 
> > >>
> > >>  Thomas
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>  MAINTAINERS | 22 ----------------------
> > >>>>  1 file changed, 22 deletions(-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > >>>> index d8575ab..4a60579 100644
> > >>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > >>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > >>>> @@ -1574,28 +1574,6 @@ F: tcg/tci/
> > >>>>  F: tci.c
> > >>>>  F: disas/tci.c
> > >>>>  
> > >>>> -Stable branches
> > >>>> ----------------
> > >>>> -Stable 1.0
> > >>>> -L: address@hidden
> > >>>> -T: git git://git.qemu-project.org/qemu-stable-1.0.git
> > >>>> -S: Orphan
> > >>>> -
> > >>>> -Stable 0.15
> > >>>> -L: address@hidden
> > >>>> -T: git git://git.qemu-project.org/qemu-stable-0.15.git
> > >>>> -S: Orphan
> > >>>> -
> > >>>> -Stable 0.14
> > >>>> -L: address@hidden
> > >>>> -T: git git://git.qemu-project.org/qemu-stable-0.14.git
> > >>>> -S: Orphan
> > >>>> -
> > >>>> -Stable 0.10
> > >>>> -L: address@hidden
> > >>>> -T: git git://git.qemu-project.org/qemu-stable-0.10.git
> > >>>> -S: Orphan
> > >>>> -
> > >>>>  Block drivers
> > >>>>  -------------
> > >>>>  VMDK
> > >>>> -- 
> > >>>> 1.8.3.1
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> >