Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)

[Alexander Graf]

On 04.05.2012, at 04:37, malc wrote:

> On Fri, 4 May 2012, Andreas F?rber wrote:
> 
>> Am 04.05.2012 02:41, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> On 05/03/2012 02:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On 9 February 2012 13:46, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>>> On 02/09/2012 03:48 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>>> You buried the one truly important sentence, let me dig it out for you:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>         *** Patches should always go to the mailing list ***
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Exceptions need justification.  Responsible handling embargoed security
>>>>>> issues may qualify.  Style fixes certainly not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 100% agreed.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't see anything in the mailing list archives corresponding
>>>> to commits f05ae537, f6af014e.
>>>> 
>>>> No unreviewed patches should go double when we're in hardfreeze!
>>> 
>>> These patches are admittedly trivial but it is important to stress the
>>> point that all patches need to go on the mailing list before being
>>> committed.
>>> 
>>> It's an important part of keeping the development process inclusive.  I
>>> don't think it's reasonable to ask for an Acked-by on something as
>>> simple as indentation changes but at the same time, there's no reason
>>> not to just post patches.
>> 
>> The second patch is far from trivial!
>> 
>> It unneededly breaks the build on ppc hosts (during the Hard Freeze!),
>> so that I can no longer compile-test my patch series against PowerKVM.
> 
> As discussed on IRC, the feature does not work on PPC32, hence it's
> violently disabled, what's needed is a black/white list of AREG0 ready
> targets.

While I agree that it's broken, a runtime error would be a lot better than a 
compile time one. The way it's now, it only makes our automated compile tests 
fail. And since nobody realized until now that sparc and alpha don't work on 
ppc hosts, I don't think having a compile time failure is warranted.


Alex