Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL] RISC-V QEMU Port Submission v8.2

[Michael Clark]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 at 12:10 AM, Michael Clark <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 11:02 PM, Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6 March 2018 at 19:46, Michael Clark <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > The following changes since commit
>> f32408f3b472a088467474ab152be3b6285b2d7b:
>> >
>> >   misc: don't use hwaddr as a type in trace events (2018-03-06 14:24:30
>> +0000)
>> >
>> > are available in the git repository at:
>> >
>> >   https://github.com/riscv/riscv-qemu.git tags/riscv-qemu-upstream-v8.2
>> >
>> > for you to fetch changes up to 7051b081bf6796e5e84406f6223a7c4900bf7298:
>> >
>> >   RISC-V - Remove support for adhoc non-standard X_COP local-interrupt
>> (2018-03-07 08:36:03 +1300)
>>
>>
>> Hi -- I would have applied this, but some of the commits
>> have no signed-off-by lines.
>>
>> This is important, and I've already asked for it once. We cannot
>> accept anything that doesn't have a clear record in the commit
>> message of everybody (person or company) who's contributed code
>> to it, indicating that they're happy for their copyrighted
>> contributions to be taken into QEMU under our license. Lists
>> of names without emails in the cover letter are not sufficient.
>>
>> In fact a lot of the last part of this patchset looks like
>> unreviewed changes/fixes that if we were going to have them we
>> should have squashed into the correct patches and resent the
>> series for review. Please don't do this. Code review is an
>> important part of how the QEMU project works.
>
>
> You must be looking at the wrong tag. There are multiple sign-offs in all
> 23 commits. The tag is riscv-qemu-upstream-v8.2. Sagar and Bastian
> contacted me out of band to add their sign-offs. Please look at the commits
> again and tell me which commit id doesn’t have a sign-off on that tag (23
> commits iirc)
>

I can forward you the mail out-of-band. I had to contact contributors to
get them to agree to change the license from MIT to GPLv2, based on a
request from Red Hat.

You are making this very hard. Do you work for Arm perchance? I really
wouldn’t be surprised if our port is being sandbagged by Arm. Apologies for
being so direct about this, but things like this happen...

I have complied with practically every review request and the sign-offs are
there. It’s a bit ridiculous.

It would be nice to find someone neutral, unrelated to Arm, to merge our PR

>