On Thu May 16, 2024 at 11:35 PM AEST, Salil Mehta wrote: > > > From: Harsh Prateek Bora <hars...@linux.ibm.com> > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:07 PM > > > > Hi Salil, > > > > On 5/16/24 17:42, Salil Mehta wrote: > > > Hi Harsh, > > > > > >> From: Harsh Prateek Bora <hars...@linux.ibm.com> > > >> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 11:15 AM > > >> > > >> Hi Salil, > > >> > > >> Thanks for your email. > > >> Your patch 1/8 is included here based on review comments on my > > previous > > >> patch from one of the maintainers in the community and therefore I > > had > > >> kept you in CC to be aware of the desire of having this independent > > patch to > > >> get merged earlier even if your other patches in the series may go > > through > > >> further reviews. > > > > > > I really don’t know which discussion are you pointing at? Please > > > understand you are fixing a bug and we are pushing a feature which has > > got large series. > > > It will break the patch-set which is about t be merged. > > > > > > There will be significant overhead of testing on us for the work we > > > have been carrying forward for large time. This will be disruptive. > > Please dont! > > > > > > > I was referring to the review discussion on my prev patch here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/d191d2jfar7l.2eh4s445m4...@gmail.com/ > > > Sure, I'm, not sure what this means. > > > > Although your patch was included with this series only to facilitate > > review of > > the additional patches depending on just one of your patch. > > > Generally you rebase your patch-set over the other and clearly state on the > cover > letter that this patch-set is dependent upon such and such patch-set. Just > imagine > if everyone starts to unilaterally pick up patches from each other's > patch-set it will > create a chaos not only for the feature owners but also for the maintainers. > > > > > > I am not sure what is appearing disruptive here. It is a common practive in > > the community that maintainer(s) can pick individual patches from the > > series if it has been vetted by siginificant number of reviewers. > > > Don’t you think this patch-set is asking for acceptance for a patch already > part of another patch-set which is about to be accepted and is a bigger > feature? > Will it cause maintenance overhead at the last moment? Yes, of course! > > > > However, in this case, since you have mentioned to post next version soon, > > you need not worry about it as that would be the preferred version for both > > of the series. > > > Yes, but please understand we are working for the benefit of overall > community. > Please cooperate here.
There might be a misunderstanding, Harsh just said there had not been much progress on your series for a while and he wasn't sure what the status was. I mentioned that we *could* take your patch 1 (with your blessing) if there was a hold up with the rest of the series. He was going to check in with you to see how it was going. This patch 1 was not intended to be merged as is without syncing up with you first, but it's understandable you were concerned because that was probably not communicated with you clearly. I appreciate you bringing up your concerns, we'll try to do better. Thanks, Nick
