On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:08:39 +0100 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 16/02/2018 16:03, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 16 February 2018 at 14:53, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 16/02/2018 12:25, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> On 16 February 2018 at 11:18, Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> The block folks are already doing this, so we should just > >>> formalize what they're doing at the moment I guess. From my point > >>> of view as long as there's something I can easily filter > >>> in/out in the email body or subject so I don't get confused > >>> (and which doesn't require me to update my filters every time > >>> a new subsystem switches to using submaintainer pulls!) > >>> I don't mind about the rest of it. Maybe a subject line with > >>> 'PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x' (ditto block, etc etc) ? > >> > >> What about just requiring you to be in the "To" or "Cc" fields? That > >> works pretty well for Linux. > > > > It would require existing submaintainers to change their process, > > though -- currently not all pull requests are to/cc me. > > Yeah, but that would not be too hard. There are only about 40 > maintainers, and if anybody misses the news they would notice fairly > quickly. :) Well, I wouldn't mind (I send pull requests to Peter anyway, and I'd certainly want s390x pull requests addressed to me as well). We could use both (subject prefix and To:/Cc:) for a belt-and-suspenders approach. > > BTW, Fam and I are also planning to improve Patchew so that it is better > at detecting pull requests and especially merged pull requests. Cool. Would a certain formatting be helpful for patchew as well? Or do you plan to parse the cover letter to hopefully find the output of git request-pull and get the correct base from that?