Re: [Qemu-devel] New requirement for getting block layer patches merged

[Gonglei (Arei)]

> From: Kevin Wolf [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 4:46 PM
> To: Gonglei (Arei)
> Cc: Markus Armbruster; Benoît Canet; address@hidden; Stefan
> Hajnoczi
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] New requirement for getting block layer patches
> merged
> 
> Am 12.09.2014 um 10:32 hat Gonglei (Arei) geschrieben:
> > > From: Kevin Wolf [mailto:address@hidden
> > > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 4:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] New requirement for getting block layer patches
> > > merged
> > >
> > > Am 12.09.2014 um 09:02 hat Gonglei (Arei) geschrieben:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] New requirement for getting block layer
> patches
> > > > > merged
> > > > >
> > > > > Benoît Canet <address@hidden> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> EOF
> > > > > >> ---
> > > > > >> If you have feedback or questions, let us know.  The process can be
> > > > > >> tweaked as time goes on so we can continue to improve.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great mail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup.  Let's see how it works out.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I can't agree more with you.
> > > >
> > > > Recently I posted some patch series, but I can't get maintainer's 
> > > > feedback
> in
> > > time.
> > > > That make me feel soulless TBH. I know maintainers are very busy 
> > > > usually.
> > > They
> > > > need to develop their own code and also need review the contributors'
> code.
> > > > If some other peoples can spread the load of patch review, that's a 
> > > > great
> > > thing IMHO.
> > >
> > > This is what Stefan's mail was actually for in some way: Letting you
> > > know that you should get a Reviewed-by first.
> > >
> > > At least for me, to be honest, this isn't a truly new process. I haven't
> > > been consistently requiring a Reviewed-by, but when I see someone else
> > > discuss a patch series and I don't have much time, I may scan the
> > > discussion to chime in if there is something fundamentally wrong, but
> > > otherwise let the author and the reviewer sort it out and wait until the
> > > discussion has settled. If I don't see a discussion, I might wait a few
> > > days for one.
> > >
> > Good method. :)
> >
> > > I'll probably keep reviewing paches without an R-b when they are simple
> > > or in my area of expertise (like qcow2), like any other reviewer should.
> > > The point is just that when I don't, before you ping us maintainers
> > > about a patch, try to get a good review from some other contributor.
> > >
> > But there's a problem that a patch may have not get a review
> > from other contributors in some areas, maybe only few people worked on it.
> > After a few weeks, maintainers can give some response to author if
> > the author is pinging...?
> 
> If you try and still fail to get review after a few weeks, sure, talk to
> us and we'll find a solution.
> 
OK.

> But keep in mind that if only few people have worked on the code, Stefan
> and I probably haven't either. So automatically delegating all such
> cases for us to review isn't going to be helpful, because reviewing
> patches to code that you don't know is one of the most time consuming
> activities. Spreading them over more contributors is the goal of this
> change.
> 
Understand. Thanks for your patient answer! I think it is helpful for
other contributors too. :)

Best regards,
-Gonglei