On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I think it's a good idea to use the mailing list whenever possible.
> Likewise, if you see a patch go in that you think would have benefited
> from being on the list, point it out.
Sometimes it would have benefited *others* if
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 09:03:18PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:12:57PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 06:40:31PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:23:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 27,
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:12:57PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 06:40:31PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:23:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > Likewise, if y
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 06:40:31PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:23:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > Likewise, if you see a patch go in that you think would have benefited
> > > from being
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 07:23:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > Likewise, if you see a patch go in that you think would have benefited
> > from being on the list, point it out.
>
> How *would* I see it? I guess I could wr
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Likewise, if you see a patch go in that you think would have benefited
> from being on the list, point it out.
How *would* I see it? I guess I could write scripts that correlated git
logs (or qemu commit list if it is ever resurr
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:15:10PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:58:32AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 12/28/2009 12:52 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > >
> > >As a reviewer, you can read qemu-commits to see when something has
> > >been committed.
> > >
> > >I have the s
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:58:32AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 12:52 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> >As a reviewer, you can read qemu-commits to see when something has
> >been committed.
> >
> >I have the same problem fwiw. I don't read qemu-commits because I
> >always look at the c
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:01:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Personally, I think blanket rules get in the way more than they help and
> the only thing that's worse is arguing about the merits of them :-)
No rules is also not good :) I hope everyone can agree on principle,
and we'll see abo
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:58:32AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/28/2009 12:52 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> As a reviewer, you can read qemu-commits to see when something has
>> been committed.
>>
>> I have the same problem fwiw. I don't read qemu-commits because I
>> always look at the
On 12/28/2009 12:52 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
As a reviewer, you can read qemu-commits to see when something has
been committed.
I have the same problem fwiw. I don't read qemu-commits because I
always look at the contents of origin when I fetch from it to see what
others are doing. Prac
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Most of the patches I commit without posting them first to the list are
> to fix bugs on non i386 targets, as they are broken too often by people
> who don't care about them.
>
> I don't like leaving the tree broken too long so I prefer to f
On 12/27/2009 04:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
It's not about maintainers, but people sending patches. Maintainers
can't review all the patches in small details. People writing patches,
should think about the impact it can have on linux-user or non-i386
system target,
Better documentation is
There are ~35 patches committed each working day. That's a lot of
unnecessary traffic to qemu-devel IMHO.
It's only unnecessary if you don't consider that people might
review patches. When I see "thanks applied" I know e.g. it's not
waiting for review. Or if it is wrong I will comment with prio
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:38:14PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 05:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
>> are committed to the shared tree.
>> 1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted
>> to the list first,
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:23:26PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:50:23PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 09:34:53PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:37:32PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > I'd like to dis
On 12/27/2009 05:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
are committed to the shared tree.
1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted
to the list first, thus they go in without review.
Why is this good? Can this be addressed?
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:50:23PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 09:34:53PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:37:32PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
> > > are committed to the sh
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 09:34:53PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:37:32PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
> > are committed to the shared tree.
> > 1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted
> >
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:37:32PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
> are committed to the shared tree.
> 1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted
>to the list first, thus they go in without review.
>Why is this good?
Am 27.12.2009 um 17:12 schrieb Blue Swirl:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin
wrote:
2. When a change is committed to the tree, often no notification is
sent
to the author.
Why is it a good idea to ask everyone to subscribe to qemu commits
list as well? Can 'applied
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 07:48:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:45:10PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:45:10PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'd like to discuss two questions
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
>> > are committed to the shared tree.
>> > 1. A l
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
> > are committed to the shared tree.
> > 1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted
> > to the list
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
> are committed to the shared tree.
> 1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted
> to the list first, thus they go in without review.
> Why is this good? Can this
On Dec 27, 2009 5:40 AM, "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
I'd like to discuss two questions related to changes that
are committed to the shared tree.
1. A lot of patches are committed without being posted
to the list first, thus they go in without review.
Why is this good? Can this be addressed?
2
27 matches
Mail list logo
