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

[Anthony Liguori]

On 03/12/2012 04:41 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 12.03.2012 22:13, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> > 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.
>
> Do you have numbers? As far as I know, more people are using Windows than Linux.
>
> Ok, there are more QEMU developers which work on Linux than on Windows,
> but that's no reason why w32 build fixes are less important.

It's not that someone is seeing a w32 build fix and saying, oh, this is less 
important, I'm going to ignore it.  Believe it or not, it may take 1-2 days just 
to notice the patch.  qemu-devel gets an awful lot of traffic these days.

> Many Linux developers will simply fix a broken build in their local tree.
> Windows developers expect that everything works out of the box,
> without manually changing the source code.
>
> => All patches which fix broken build are equal.

Why is a broken build worse than a bug that affects functionality?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> > Regards,
> >
> > Anthony Liguori