Am 13.03.2012 14:50, schrieb Avi Kivity: > On 03/13/2012 11:09 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> If we start saying that, Alex "owns" ppc except for things that are >>> "important" like a build breakage, then we get into the ugly definition of >>> what's important and what's not important. >> >> I don't think we've had huge problems with defining "trivial" and I >> don't think we'd really have big arguments about "urgent" either -- >> as the gatekeeper you and the other direct-committers can always use >> your judgement and say 'this should go through the submaintainer tree'. >> >> I agree completely with Alex about why urgent fixes don't mesh well with >> the periodic submaintainer tree pullreq workflow. Dumping the 'urgent' >> fix problem off onto submaintainers is basically asking us all to >> have an extra 'foo-urgent' tree and send out single patch pullreqs, >> which seems to me like a very heavyweight way of causing a patch to >> be applied > > > 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.
Actually there is: A trivial fix can be sent with a one-liner: $ git send-email HEAD^ whereas there is no matching command for sending a pull request. You need to manage your own scripts that place git-pull-request output into the cover letter. (And quite obviously you need a publicly available git repository in the first place. Most of us do by now.) Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
