On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:45:10PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >> > I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that > >> > are committed to the shared tree. > >> > 1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted > >> > to the list first, thus they go in without review. > >> > Why is this good? Can this be addressed? > >> > >> Good or bad, this has always been the workflow. > > > > This made sense with CVS where it's hard to develop otherwise. With git > > anyone can keep on development in a personal tree. There are no > > advantages to pushing unreviewed changes that I can see. > > The review is never complete and it does not catch all bugs. At some > point it's better to push the patches to a tree where they are getting > some testing. Currently only the master tree, stable trees and > Anthony's tree get some attention from testers.
True, but it wil lcatch some bugs. Please give people a chance to review. If there are no comments for a while, I agree it makes sense to push. > >> > 2. When a change is committed to the tree, often no notification is sent > >> > to the author. > >> > Why is it a good idea to ask everyone to subscribe to qemu commits > >> > list as well? Can 'applied thanks' mail be sent to patch authors? > >> > >> In the good old times, CVS commit messages went also to qemu-devel > >> list. That may no longer be technically possible or even desirable > >> because of the volume. I think qemu-commits sends the message to the > >> qemu-commits list and the author, so the 'applied, thanks' shouldn't > >> be needed if the list worked reliably. > > > > This does not work and never did. mail can also be sent earlier than > > patch it pushed to a common tree: once someone else starts tracking > > patch in his tree, controbutor can stop tracking it. > > In that model (Linux) we'd need a set of official second level trees > with maintainers who also test the patches heavily. Unlike Linux, we > don't have an unlimited supply of developers capable of acting as a > second level maintainer. Also QEMU does not have many independent > subsystems that could be delegated to the lieutenants. IMO this is unrelated to linux model at all. It's about not loosing patches: if you don't let me know patch is taken care of, I will repost, this floods the list with unneeded overhead. -- MST
