Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!

[malc]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:

> On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
> > > > better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for
> > > > sweeping up trivial patches has been working well; maybe we
> > > > could use a slightly more formal qemu-urgent process for
> > > > flagging up build breakage etc?
> > > > 
> > > > (Personally I'd support a rule that any outstanding
> > > > build-breakage fixes must always go in before anything else.)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > When are build-breakage fixes not trivial?
> > 
> > 'trivial' implies "it's OK if this patch doesn't go in for a
> > week or two until the trivial patch queue has built up to
> > a reasonable size". Also sending them via trivial means
> > there's no mechanism for causing them to be applied before
> > other commits/pullreqs. So generally I don't cc build-fixes to
> > trivial.
> 
> In all fairness, the last build breakage I see was specific to win32, was
> reported on Mar 1st, and a patch was committed on Mar 3rd.
> 
> I don't think it's reasonable to expect more than this for a breakage on
> win32.

Why?


-- 
mailto:address@hidden