On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 14:14 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 11/29/2010 01:58 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 29.11.2010, at 20:29, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > > > >> Is 2 just right? > >> > > I was thinking of a more sophisticated model. Maybe 1 maintainer + 1 user? > > Or 1 person who knows his way around the area + 1 more? > > > > + 1 user? cute :-) > > 2 Acks seems like a good place to start.
2 acks is okay with me. > > >> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Please set up a mailing list we can just CC for stable candidates, so > >>> they don't get lost. Motivation for keeping track of stable stuff differs > >>> between developers and it's essential to make the kick-off easily > >>> accessible. It's worked out very well for Linux, so why not for us? > >>> > >>> > >> Is the desire to filter mail or have private discussions that are not on > >> qemu-devel? > >> > >> If it's the former, a [STABLE] tag in the subject would work just as well. > >> If it's the later, I think it runs contrary to the goal of getting more > >> people involved in stable. > >> > > The desire is to have an easy to set tag. [STABLE] to me indicates that the > > patch is specifically made for stable. CC to stable@ tells me that the > > patch should go into stable as soon as it's submitted upstream and if it > > doesn't apply cleanly, the stable maintainer nags the author about a > > backport. > > > > Okay, as long as stable is just there for CC and qemu-devel stays in the > loop. Can't do it right now but remind me again when Savannah is back up. I would agree, a different list makes things a bit easier to track, but discussions need to happen on qemu-devel so that the right people stay involved. Tagging a patch isn't always a good thing because the patch is likely sent to the list for the dev branch, and only CCed to stable because it applies and is needed. Justin
