[Qemu-devel] Re: commit rules for common git tree

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 05:45:10PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 04:12:37PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> 
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> Good or bad, this has always been the workflow.
> >
> > This made sense with CVS where it's hard to develop otherwise.  With git
> > anyone can keep on development in a personal tree.  There are no
> > advantages to pushing unreviewed changes that I can see.
> 
> The review is never complete and it does not catch all bugs. At some
> point it's better to push the patches to a tree where they are getting
> some testing. Currently only the master tree, stable trees and
> Anthony's tree get some attention from testers.

True, but it wil lcatch some bugs. Please give people a chance to review.
If there are no comments for a while, I agree it makes sense to push.

> >> > 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 thanks' mail be sent to patch authors?
> >>
> >> In the good old times, CVS commit messages went also to qemu-devel
> >> list. That may no longer be technically possible or even desirable
> >> because of the volume. I think qemu-commits sends the message to the
> >> qemu-commits list and the author, so the 'applied, thanks' shouldn't
> >> be needed if the list worked reliably.
> >
> > This does not work and never did.  mail can also be sent earlier than
> > patch it pushed to a common tree: once someone else starts tracking
> > patch in his tree, controbutor can stop tracking it.
> 
> In that model (Linux) we'd need a set of official second level trees
> with maintainers who also test the patches heavily. Unlike Linux, we
> don't have an unlimited supply of developers capable of acting as a
> second level maintainer. Also QEMU does not have many independent
> subsystems that could be delegated to the lieutenants.


IMO this is unrelated to linux model at all. It's about not loosing
patches: if you don't let me know patch is taken care of,
I will repost, this floods the list with unneeded overhead.

-- 
MST