[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v20 0/8] Build ACPI Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table (HMA
From: |
Markus Armbruster |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v20 0/8] Build ACPI Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table (HMAT) |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 08:16:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) |
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 07:00:53AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 08:53:30AM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
>> >> Hi Michael,
>> >>
>> >> Could this patch series be queued?
>> >> Thank you very much!
>> >>
>> >> Tao
>> >
>> > QEMU is in freeze, so not yet. Please ping after the release.
>>
>> Just to avoid confusion: it's Michael's personal preference not to
>> process patches for the next version during freeze. Other maintainers
>> do, and that's actually the project's policy:
>>
>> Subject: QEMU Summit 2017: minutes
>> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-11/msg04453.html
>>
>> qemu-next:
>> * Problem 1: Contributors cannot get patches merged during freeze
>> (bad experience)
>> [...]
>> * Markus Armbruster: Problem 1 is solved if maintainers keep their own
>> -next trees
>> * Paolo Bonzini: Maintaining -next could slow down or create work for
>> -freeze (e.g. who does backports)
>> * Action: Maintainers mustn't tell submitters to go away just because
>> we're in a release freeze (it's up to them whether they prefer to
>> maintain a "-next" tree for their subsystem with patches queued for
>> the following release, or track which patches they've accepted
>> some other way)
>> * We're not going to have an official project-wide "-next" tree, though
>>
>> Michael, would queuing up patches in a -next branch really be too much
>> trouble for you?
>
> Thanks for pointing this out!
>
> I stopped asking for re-post since awhile ago. I don't queue patches in
> a public tree but I do review and do keep track of pending patches.
>
> I tend to ask contributors to also ping because sometimes there's a
> problem with rebase, I drop the patch but forget to tell the
> contributor, and it tends to happen more with big patchsets posted during
> freeze as there's a rush to merge changes right after that.
> I usually don't bother people with this for small patches though.
>
> I'll try to be clearer in my communication so contributors don't feel
> stressed.
>
> Would something like:
>
> "I'll queue it for merge after the release. If possible please ping me
> after the release to help make sure it didn't get dropped."
>
> be clearer?
Yes, that's both clearer and friendlier. Thank you!
> Hopefully windows CI efforts will soon bear fruit to the point where
> they stress PCI enough to make maintaining next worth the effort.
CI++ :)