qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL 0/7] Maintainers 20210811 patches


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PULL 0/7] Maintainers 20210811 patches
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 09:43:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0

Hi Peter,

On 8/11/21 2:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 07:44, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> The following changes since commit 703e8cd6189cf699c8d5c094bc68b5f3afa6ad71:
>>
>>   Update version for v6.1.0-rc3 release (2021-08-10 19:08:09 +0100)
>>
>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>
>>   git://git.kraxel.org/qemu tags/maintainers-20210811-pull-request
>>
>> for you to fetch changes up to a4de5e8a0667e3ee43ca9953ec7fd11ff19f2c92:
>>
>>   MAINTAINERS: update virtio-gpu entry. (2021-08-11 08:39:16 +0200)
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> MAINTAINERS: update kraxel's entries.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'll keep this in my list in case we need to roll an rc4, but
> if we are able to release 6.1 without needing another rc then
> I'll just hold this over until we reopen trunk for 6.2.

I recently had a bad experience while bisecting over commit
3e13d8e34b5 (based on v6.0.0-rc4, merged after v6.0.0), git
was failing as:

  Some good revs are not ancestors of the bad rev.
  git bisect cannot work properly in this case.

I never understood why this commit in particular, but it broke
automatic bisection. I doubt simple MAINTAINERS changes annoy
us, but such trouble could be avoided if we ask maintainers to
base their pull requests on latest release tag (not the rc ones).
Just my 2 cents anyway ;)

Regards,

Phil.




reply via email to

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