Am 12.02.2013 12:24, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Il 12/02/2013 09:42, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >>>>>> No, it wasn't. The patch was reviewed and tested. What's the problem. >>>>>> It's proposed for 1.4 so it's now or never. >>>> The problem is that the test failed. Why do we even test things if we >>>> commit anyway when the test fails? >>>> >>>> And why do we have subsystem trees when a committer comes (without even >>>> having taken part in the discussion) and applies patches that the >>>> subsystem maintainers are very obviously not happy with? If you like, >>>> you can have the block subsystem back, just send - or better just apply >>>> - a patch against MAINTAINERS. >>>> >>> I think this is just a problem with the new tools, that didn't make it >>> clear that you were not happy with the patch. (It was clear from the >>> mailing list). >>> >>> In general, the new tools sound like an improvement, but it's normal to >>> have a misunderstanding or two in the initial period. >> Yup. No need to get excited. >> >> Let's revert this patch for 1.4, keeping QEMU exactly as working and as >> broken as it has always been. Then figure out which additional cases we >> can make work for 1.5, and which ones we have to break for that, if any. > I'll send a block pull request that includes a revert. > > Stefan
I'm not convinced that this would be a good idea. See my other mail for the reason. Stefan
