On 15 May 2012 21:20, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 05/15/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> In this case it is a regression...
> At what point did it regress? I don't recall win64 ever working uner TCG... Sorry, I had in mind the mmap thing, and got confused with what I was quoting. >> Anyway, my point is not "these things must go in" but that it's very >> hard to tell from this side whether a patch is in the state: >> (a) in your queue and will go into this rc >> (b) missed the boat for this rc but will be in the next >> (c) completely overlooked and needs pinging/yelling about >> (d) judged not important enough to justify fixing in this release > > It's it not tagged '1.1' than I am not considering it for 1.1. > > If it's tagged with 1.1 *and* in a subsystem with an active submaintainer, I > would expect the submaintainer to handle it. I do keep track of it though > until someone responds with "Thanks, Applied." and will follow up with > patches that fall into this category. > If you've posted a patch for 1.1 and it's a couple days old without > feedback, then you probably should ping the appropriate maintainer about it. > > FWIW, I don't see any pending 1.1 patches from you so I don't know if this > is a theoretical concern or a practical one. My current concern is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/158556/ (submitted by Alex, although I see he forgot to tag it with "1.1"). I'll ping it... -- PMM
