On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:41:51PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 22/08/2013 14:43, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
On 08/21/13 19:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2013 19:07, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
NACK
You know that a single developer's NACK counts nothing (it can be you, it can be me), don't you?
going meta...
What's this?
All I know (... I think I know) about patch acceptance is that Anthony prefers to have at least one R-b. As far as I've seen this is not a hard requirement (for example, maintainers sometimes send unreviewed patches in a pull request, and on occasion they are merged).
No words have been spent on NAKs yet (... since my subscription, that is). Is this stuff formalized somewhere?
Sorry for wasting time...
No, it's not. But for example I NACKed removal of pvpanic from 1.6, it was overridden, and I didn't complain too much.
Paolo
I don't think it was overridden. In fact you NACKed an explicit -device pvpanic. You suggested disabling in 1.6 but keeping it a builtin, but this was never implemented, afterwards issues with Linux guests surfaced, we discussed this again on the KVM call, and there seemed to be a concensus that it's an OK patch, with some issues. A week later Marcel sent v2, it worked and looked like the least problematic path to take. -- MST