Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!!

[malc]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:

> On 03/12/2012 04:09 PM, malc wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > 
> > > On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>   wrote:
> > > > > On 03/12/2012 03:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > > > I agree that that's a specific area it would be nice to do
> > > > > > better in. It seems to me that the qemu-trivial process for
> > > > > > sweeping up trivial patches has been working well; maybe we
> > > > > > could use a slightly more formal qemu-urgent process for
> > > > > > flagging up build breakage etc?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (Personally I'd support a rule that any outstanding
> > > > > > build-breakage fixes must always go in before anything else.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > When are build-breakage fixes not trivial?
> > > > 
> > > > 'trivial' implies "it's OK if this patch doesn't go in for a
> > > > week or two until the trivial patch queue has built up to
> > > > a reasonable size". Also sending them via trivial means
> > > > there's no mechanism for causing them to be applied before
> > > > other commits/pullreqs. So generally I don't cc build-fixes to
> > > > trivial.
> > > 
> > > In all fairness, the last build breakage I see was specific to win32, was
> > > reported on Mar 1st, and a patch was committed on Mar 3rd.
> > > 
> > > I don't think it's reasonable to expect more than this for a breakage on
> > > win32.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Patch came on a Thursday and was applied on a Saturday.  That's pretty much
> one business day.
> 
> For a problem that affects very few people (and hence has very few people
> complaining), it seems like a reasonable response time.

And you get "very few" statistics exactly from?

-- 
mailto:address@hidden