On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
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.
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.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
-- PMM
