[Top][All Lists]

[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++ :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]