"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 07:00:53AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 08:53:30AM +0800, Tao Xu wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> >> >> Could this patch series be queued? >> >> Thank you very much! >> >> >> >> Tao >> > >> > QEMU is in freeze, so not yet. Please ping after the release. >> >> Just to avoid confusion: it's Michael's personal preference not to >> process patches for the next version during freeze. Other maintainers >> do, and that's actually the project's policy: >> >> Subject: QEMU Summit 2017: minutes >> Message-ID: >> <cafeaca-b9odkpfzbntwfhwsv1honbuf75p_xb_tf74h_nbg...@mail.gmail.com> >> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-11/msg04453.html >> >> qemu-next: >> * Problem 1: Contributors cannot get patches merged during freeze >> (bad experience) >> [...] >> * Markus Armbruster: Problem 1 is solved if maintainers keep their own >> -next trees >> * Paolo Bonzini: Maintaining -next could slow down or create work for >> -freeze (e.g. who does backports) >> * Action: Maintainers mustn't tell submitters to go away just because >> we're in a release freeze (it's up to them whether they prefer to >> maintain a "-next" tree for their subsystem with patches queued for >> the following release, or track which patches they've accepted >> some other way) >> * We're not going to have an official project-wide "-next" tree, though >> >> Michael, would queuing up patches in a -next branch really be too much >> trouble for you? > > Thanks for pointing this out! > > I stopped asking for re-post since awhile ago. I don't queue patches in > a public tree but I do review and do keep track of pending patches. > > I tend to ask contributors to also ping because sometimes there's a > problem with rebase, I drop the patch but forget to tell the > contributor, and it tends to happen more with big patchsets posted during > freeze as there's a rush to merge changes right after that. > I usually don't bother people with this for small patches though. > > I'll try to be clearer in my communication so contributors don't feel > stressed. > > Would something like: > > "I'll queue it for merge after the release. If possible please ping me > after the release to help make sure it didn't get dropped." > > be clearer?
Yes, that's both clearer and friendlier. Thank you! > Hopefully windows CI efforts will soon bear fruit to the point where > they stress PCI enough to make maintaining next worth the effort. CI++ :)