On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> 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.
Right, I specifically do not take build-breakage fixes because trivial-patches pull requests don't happen immediately. If there is a critical problem (i.e. a build breakage), then a committer needs to take care of it so it can get merged directly. Let's not make the path longer by going via trivial-patches here. Stefan
