Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 April 2014 13:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>>
>>> On 7 April 2014 12:47, Juan Quintela wrote:
Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Like I said, one patch per maintained subsystem,
>>> one patch for the leftovers.
>>
>> Easier said than done. MAINT
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
>> On 7 April 2014 12:47, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>> Peter Maydell wrote:
I'm really not a fan of this kind of single patch that
touches a huge number of files at once. They're basically
impossible to review and they introduce the
On 7 April 2014 13:21, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
>> On 7 April 2014 12:47, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>> Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Like I said, one patch per maintained subsystem,
>> one patch for the leftovers.
>
> Easier said than done. MAINTAINERS has more than 100 section
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 7 April 2014 12:47, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I'm really not a fan of this kind of single patch that
>>> touches a huge number of files at once. They're basically
>>> impossible to review and they introduce the possibility
>>> of conflicts betwe
On 7 April 2014 12:47, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Peter Maydell wrote:
>> I'm really not a fan of this kind of single patch that
>> touches a huge number of files at once. They're basically
>> impossible to review and they introduce the possibility
>> of conflicts between submaintainer tree changes a
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 April 2014 04:20, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> After previous Peter patch, they are redundant. This way we don't asign them
>> except when needed. Once there, there were lots of case where the ".fields"
>> indentation was wrong:
>>
>> .fields = (VMStateField []) {
>>
On 7 April 2014 04:20, Juan Quintela wrote:
> After previous Peter patch, they are redundant. This way we don't asign them
> except when needed. Once there, there were lots of case where the ".fields"
> indentation was wrong:
>
> .fields = (VMStateField []) {
> and
> .fields = (VM
