> From: Kevin Wolf [mailto:kw...@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 4:46 PM > To: Gonglei (Arei) > Cc: Markus Armbruster; Benoît Canet; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Stefan > Hajnoczi > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] New requirement for getting block layer patches > merged > > Am 12.09.2014 um 10:32 hat Gonglei (Arei) geschrieben: > > > From: Kevin Wolf [mailto:kw...@redhat.com] > > > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 4:14 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] New requirement for getting block layer patches > > > merged > > > > > > Am 12.09.2014 um 09:02 hat Gonglei (Arei) geschrieben: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] New requirement for getting block layer > patches > > > > > merged > > > > > > > > > > Benoît Canet <benoit.ca...@irqsave.net> writes: > > > > > > > > > > >> EOF > > > > > >> --- > > > > > >> If you have feedback or questions, let us know. The process can be > > > > > >> tweaked as time goes on so we can continue to improve. > > > > > > > > > > > > Great mail. > > > > > > > > > > Yup. Let's see how it works out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. I can't agree more with you. > > > > > > > > Recently I posted some patch series, but I can't get maintainer's > > > > feedback > in > > > time. > > > > That make me feel soulless TBH. I know maintainers are very busy > > > > usually. > > > They > > > > need to develop their own code and also need review the contributors' > code. > > > > If some other peoples can spread the load of patch review, that's a > > > > great > > > thing IMHO. > > > > > > This is what Stefan's mail was actually for in some way: Letting you > > > know that you should get a Reviewed-by first. > > > > > > At least for me, to be honest, this isn't a truly new process. I haven't > > > been consistently requiring a Reviewed-by, but when I see someone else > > > discuss a patch series and I don't have much time, I may scan the > > > discussion to chime in if there is something fundamentally wrong, but > > > otherwise let the author and the reviewer sort it out and wait until the > > > discussion has settled. If I don't see a discussion, I might wait a few > > > days for one. > > > > > Good method. :) > > > > > I'll probably keep reviewing paches without an R-b when they are simple > > > or in my area of expertise (like qcow2), like any other reviewer should. > > > The point is just that when I don't, before you ping us maintainers > > > about a patch, try to get a good review from some other contributor. > > > > > But there's a problem that a patch may have not get a review > > from other contributors in some areas, maybe only few people worked on it. > > After a few weeks, maintainers can give some response to author if > > the author is pinging...? > > If you try and still fail to get review after a few weeks, sure, talk to > us and we'll find a solution. > OK.
> But keep in mind that if only few people have worked on the code, Stefan > and I probably haven't either. So automatically delegating all such > cases for us to review isn't going to be helpful, because reviewing > patches to code that you don't know is one of the most time consuming > activities. Spreading them over more contributors is the goal of this > change. > Understand. Thanks for your patient answer! I think it is helpful for other contributors too. :) Best regards, -Gonglei