On 08/05/2014 04:07 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > n 5 August 2014 08:08, Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> wrote: >> 05.08.2014 08:41, Chen Gang wrote: >>> >>> Every members have their own tastes, and one working flow may be not >>> suitable for all members. I can understand, and hope other members >>> understand too. >>> >>> At least for me, next, I shall send patch to the members which I can get >>> from 'get_maintainers.pl' and only Cc to qemu-devel. And shall skip >>> qemu-trivial and Michael Tokarev. >> >> Why skip both? It's your call, but I'm curious. > > I think that is a misunderstanding. You asked not to get mails > cc'd to both you personally and qemu-trivial at the same time, > and Chen misread this to mean not to cc either address. > > Trivial patches should still be sent "To: qemu-devel + Cc: qemu-trivial". >
OK, thank you for your explanation. Excuse me, my English is not quite well, originally, I really misunderstood what Michael Tokarev said. >> What I _think_ wrong is that get_maintainers.pl lists many random >> "patchers" for a given file by default. > > Yes, I think it's probably reasonable to change it to make it not > default to "--git-fallback". Do you want to submit a patch? > > (Perhaps we could make it cc qemu-orphan@ if we wanted to > flag up holes in our MAINTAINERS coverage and patches liable > to get lost, but that probably only makes sense if we have people > who would care enough to do that monitoring work.) > Originally, I assumed Michael Tokarev is that role (be the people who would care enough to do that monitoring work), but sorry, at present, I know, I misunderstand him (he is not this role). It is really hard to find a member to act as this role (I guess, for act as this role, he/she will be a real global maintainer of qemu). Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
