On 15/01/2015 12:55, Peter Maydell wrote: > > With the introduction of pbonzini's "misc" patches tree I'm not > > sure current trivial-patches is worth to keep. Paolo does much > > better job in this area than me. > > I'll leave that up to the two of you, but splitting the load > of review and testing seems to me like it would make sense. > In any case, thanks to both of you for the efforts you've > put in to this sort of patch curation -- I think it's really > important for the project.
The trivial patches tree is still very useful. The meaning of "misc patches" is almost always "I don't want to send a separate pull request because this is touching too many areas" (typically three or more among: qemu-char, SCSI, KVM, x86, and stuff that I touched and got a Reviewed-by). 5-10% of the "misc patches", instead, correspond to unmaintained areas---basically the patches that Anthony used to apply directly---but luckily by now there are very few of those. In any case, most patches in the "misc patches" pull request are not trivial. They could very well break something and if they do I sometimes get to fix them... which is why I'm very happy that someone else picks up the _really_ trivial patches! So, the trivial patches tree is still as useful as it has always been, and I use it myself relatively often for patches outside the areas I maintain. Paolo
