On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:18:01PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 02.03.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Peter Maydell: > > On 3 March 2015 at 00:26, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > >> Am 02.03.2015 um 16:19 schrieb Peter Maydell: > >>> On 26 February 2015 at 04:58, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Those patches were reviewed some time ago, and Paolo suggested I submit > >>>> them > >>>> through my own tree. So, here is my first x86 pull request. :) > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Applied, thanks. > >> > >> Why? You yourself had objections against 08/11, no? And replacement > >> series are already on the list. > > > > Because nobody followed up to this cover letter to say "don't apply this". > > That's pretty much what I replied to 04/11, and I expected you to see > that, in particular since you were on CC and chimed in. :/ > > I had some of Eduardo's alternative patches queued already and will look > into fixing this mess...
I assumed the pull request were already going to be ignored considering all the replies. I didn't know an additional "please don't apply this" request was necessary, sorry. :( > > > I process pullreqs in first-in-first-out order and I rely on > > submitters (or others) letting me know if there's a reason not to > > apply something, and on people not submitting pullreqs including > > patches which have got negative review on list :-( > > In this case it was Eduardo's first pull request, with overlap between > qom-cpu and target-i386 responsibilities and Paolo having given an Rb > for a full APIC movement series rather than the individual patches I > pointed out. That requires a bit more review. > > Eduardo, I also notice that your tag luckily does not match the above > description in your cover letter. That section is supposed to be filled > in by git-request-pull from the tag, not hand-edited, and should be a > summary of what changes the pull includes, not who reviewed it. You can > place any additional comments above the generated template. Yeah, I edited that text in the e-mail message only, not to the tag description. It looks like I chose the wrong spot in the e-mail message to add my notes and I made it look like it was the tag description. Sorry again. -- Eduardo
