On 13 March 2012 13:50, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > Not at all. I have a memory/core branch and a memory/urgent branch -- > it's trivial to maintain them with git, and quite often I send a 1-patch > pull request. There's no material difference between sending a patch > and sending a pull request (except if you use git.kernel.org, ugh), and > it does guarantee you priority handing.
For me, setting up a pull request is considerably harder than sending a mail saying "Reviewed-by:, this is a build breakage, fix, please apply.". Faffing around with an /urgent branch for the sake of the occasional build fix in my area is exactly what I'd rather avoid. >> (plus it puts an extra person in the loop which is pretty >> much guaranteed to slow things down). > > Having the committers process all these patches (and monitor all > patches) is guaranteed to slow things down too. They're in the loop anyway, because they have to process the pull request just as they would a single patch. -- PMM
