qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: commit rules for common git tree
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:01:45 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 07:48:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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.

Also, there are more reasons for posting patches than just finding bugs:
- supplying motivation for a set of changes
- giving heads-up to other developers that might touch same file
- teach by example of proper patch posting, with same process for everyone


> > >> > 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




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]