On 12 March 2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> 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. -- PMM
