Re: [Qemu-devel] [PR RFC] RISC-V Patches for 3.2, Part 3

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 01:59:48 PST (-0800), Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 09:05, Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On 2019-02-02 09:41, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > >> My mail filter finds these RFC pullrequests, yes. I'm then
> > >> relying on my manual brain to not actually apply them.
> > >> (If it's a slow day I might do a test merge on them, but
> > >> usually my queue is full enough that I don't get to them
> > >> before the real PR appears.)
> > >
> > > Ah, OK -- do you want me to do something else?
> >
> > At least I got a little bit confused by "PR RFC" ... I think some other
> > maintainers rather send out patch series marked with "PATCH" first, and
> > add some non-pull-request cover letter with a text like "I'm intending
> > to send a pull request for this soon, please review one more time...".
> > Then after a day or two, once Patchew checked the series and nobody else
> > complained, they send a real "PULL" request.
>
> Yeah, generally nobody else sends RFC pull requests, they just
> send the actual pulls. I don't object if Palmer finds them
> useful, though.

If nobody else does it then I might stop -- they were more useful for me when I 
was new at this, as I was pretty worried about making mistakes and wanted to 
make sure I didn't screw anything up.  Things have gone pretty smoothly, so it 
might just have been paranoia.

Unless anyone likes these I think I'll stop sending them.

> For what it's worth, my filter for finding pull requests is emails
> containing "for you to fetch changes up to" but not either of
> "not for master" or "PULL SUBSYSTEM". So if you want to specifically
> keep out of the filters you can add "not for master" in the cover
> letter. But as I say it's not a big deal for me to sort things out
> manually -- the filter has the odd false positive anyway.

OK, makes sense.