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<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. > > > > 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:av1...@comtv.ru
