On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:11:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested > Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring > XENVER_ but sane."): > > On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of > > the procedure here. Jan reviewed the patch thoroughly and then acked > > it; on the basis of that, Konrad legitimately checked it in. After it > > was checked in Jan said, "I've changed my mind and withdraw my Ack"; > > and the assumption of the subsequent conversation was that an ack > > *can* be withdrawn after it has been legitimately checked in, and that > > if no other Ack is supplied, then it must be reverted. > > > > I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the rules. Reviewers > > in general, and maintainers in particular, should make reasonably sure > > that they mean the Ack before they give it; and if they change their > > mind after it has been legitimately checked in, then it's now up to > > them to make the change they want to see according to the regular > > procedure. > > For the record, I agree completely with George here. I was expecting > that the next step would be to for Jan to post patches to revert the > extra hypercall and replace it with something else. > > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was: > > And btw., considering that Konrad has already posted a revert patch, > > and I have ack-ed that one, this could now go in right away (and the > > discussion could either be settled or start over). > > I don't see that patch you describe in my inbox, but maybe I have > missed it.
It is part of my series. This is the revert (there are two of them) http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01913.html http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01926.html And then these two patches add build-id using the XENVER hypercall: http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01923.html http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-04/msg01902.html > > If that reversion is proposed, following a request for a 2nd/3rd > opinion from me and George, and given the discussion so far, I think > that patch ought to have been CC'd to me and George. Argh, I probably missed you and George on them. My apologies! > > I don't think it would be appropriate to commit a revert except as > part of a series which introduces an replacement way of providing the > needed functionality - at least, enough functionality that in practice > a plausibly long build-id can be retrieved. > > If you want the original reverted, I think it is up to you, Jan, to > provide (or procure) such a replacement. > > Thanks, > Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel