>>> George Dunlap <george.dun...@citrix.com> 04/14/16 5:16 PM >>> >On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of >the procedure here. Jan reviewed the patch thoroughly and then acked >it; on the basis of that, Konrad legitimately checked it in. After it >was checked in Jan said, "I've changed my mind and withdraw my Ack"; >and the assumption of the subsequent conversation was that an ack >*can* be withdrawn after it has been legitimately checked in, and that >if no other Ack is supplied, then it must be reverted. > >I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the rules. Reviewers >in general, and maintainers in particular, should make reasonably sure >that they mean the Ack before they give it; and if they change their >mind after it has been legitimately checked in, then it's now up to >them to make the change they want to see according to the regular >procedure. That is, if Jan wants it reverted, he needs to post a >patch reverting it and get Acks from the appropriate maintainers; and >the discussion needs to be around Jan's reversion being accepted, not >about Konrad's original patch continuing to be accepted. (Obvious >exceptions can be made in the case of emergencies like build >breakages.)
Fundamentally I agree, but I think there's more to this than just following a set of rules. For example, please don't forget the time pressure due to the (at that time) rapidly approaching freeze date. And then, mistakes happen, and so I made a mistake here by sending the ack a few hours too early. What is really hard to understand to me is why it is so difficult to just get a refereeing opinion on the actual interface change. IMO we don't really need to discuss rules and processes, the question is as simple as "Do we want/need this new interface?" Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
