qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/14] MAINTAINERS cleanups - please read


From: Blue Swirl
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/14] MAINTAINERS cleanups - please read
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:45:30 +0000

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 21:47, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 04:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> On 16 April 2012 18:42, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/16/2012 12:17 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's my stab at it:
>>>>            Maintained:  Someone actually looks after it. The maintainer
>>>>                         will have a git subtree for this area and
>>>> patches
>>>>                         are expected to go through it. Bug reports will
>>>>                         generally be investigated.
>>>
>>>
>>> * For something to be marked Maintained, there must be a person on M: and
>>> there must be a git tree for the subsystem.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean "there must be a git tree" or "there must be a git tree
>> listed under T: for this area" ? We have I think several subsystems
>> where things do come in via pullreq for a submaintainer tree but that
>> tree isn't officially public except in as much as the branch name
>> for the pullreq is always the same...
>
>
> I'd like to record T: as part of a way to validate pull requests.  I get
> slightly nervous about pull requests because it's an easy way to sneak code
> into the tree if you're malicious.

Wouldn't signed PULL requests help? They need a very recent git though.

>
> I'd prefer if we kept an official whitelist of trees in MAINTAINERS verses
> relying on my local .git/config.
>
>
>>
>> I don't particularly object to providing a T: line for
>> target-arm.next/arm-devs.next, but I'm not sure it's particularly useful,
>> since we don't have the same tendency the kernel does to having subtrees
>> which can diverge significantly because of large amounts of change waiting
>> for a merge window. I wouldn't expect people to base arm patches against
>> arm-devs.next rather than master, for instance. (Maybe I should??)
>> Anyway, I think if we have T: lines in MAINTAINERS it should be because
>> (and we should clearly say that) that is the tree that we expect patches
>> in that area to apply to.
>
>
> I think we should (and do already?) say that all patches on qemu-devel
> should be against qemu.git unless otherwise indicated in the patch subject.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>>
>> -- PMM
>>
>
>



reply via email to

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