Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> writes: > On 20/5/26 15:09, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 20/5/26 14:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> On 20/5/26 14:52, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Fixes: 812b31d3f91 ("configs: rename default-configs to configs and >>>>>> reorganise") >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>>>>> index b75f3222f2f..2a4d124fb3c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>>>>> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ X: target/hexagon/gen_idef_parser_funcs.py >>>>>> F: linux-user/hexagon/ >>>>>> F: tests/tcg/hexagon/ >>>>>> F: disas/hexagon.c >>>>>> -F: configs/targets/hexagon-linux-user/default.mak >>>>>> +F: configs/targets/hexagon-linux-user.mak >>>>>> F: docker/dockerfiles/debian-hexagon-cross.docker >>>>> >>>>> This one's wrong, too. >>>> Already fixed in Alex's tree: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/[email protected]/ >>>> Pierrick suggested to repost patch dependencies already queued in >>>> maintainer tree when posting series; while this seem counter >>>> productive it could indeed have saved us time. >>>> >>>>> I have an unsent patch fixing both. In fact, I have an unsent series >>>>> fixing *all* F: patterns that don't resolve to any file. >>> >>> I looked for your series without success, then realized you mentioned >>> it is "unsent". This patch is still valid then. >> >> Yes. >> >>> Why mention unsent work? >> To avoid duplicated work. > > I'm not sure this thread is making sense o_O
Are we talking past each other? > Let's try to figure what you meant here. I'm not racing to get > this patch in nor enjoying duplicating work, but this is the > mailing list rules (due to the intrinsic email workflow latency, > not to mention subscriber processing their INBOX in FIFO mode). Let me recap the obvious :) 1. First workable patch on the list has priority, with a generous interpretation of "workable". 2. If a workable patch on the list overlaps with one I haven't sent, I rebase mine onto it. No arguing, no whining. In fact, I did exactly that, and then told you: "I've been picking [your patches] into my tree". When my patches are ready, I intend to post them with a bunch of Based-on: pointing to yours, or include yours with mine, whatever feels more convenient. Okay? > See for example last week at least 3 developers fixed the same > GCC warning issue. Generically, how could we improve that? I don't have better ideas than "watch the mailing list", and "let the right people know what you're doing". >>>> Oh :( I already sent various patches about that yesterday :( >> >> I've been picking them into my tree as I went. I may have missed the >> odd patch, but I'll fix that. >> >>>>> >>>>>> F: gdbstub/gdb-xml/hexagon*.xml >>>>>> T: git https://github.com/quic/qemu.git hex-next >>
