On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:35:47AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:55:50AM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
[...]
> > I realize that if it's not automated (via Git hooks or similar), it can
> > become "lossy", i.e. if Joe posts v1 of a patch, you give a 'Tested-by',
> > then there are two scenarios that immediately spring to mind:
> >
> > (1) Joe respins a v2 to make some corrections, adds your 'Tested-by'
> > tag, and whoever applies the patch picks it up -- all good.
> >
> > (b) However, if a v2 was _not_ necessary, then whoever is applying the
> > patch / series must remember to add the tag -- "lossy".
>
> I don't think that's a big deal really, QEMU has been doing this for years.
> If you post a vNNN of your patch, you are responsible for adding the tags.
Nod; funnily enough, Markus Armbruster sort of mentioned this 'lossy'
notion with QEMU sometimes, with a note that: seasoned contributors /
maintainers are all fairly diligent, but sometimes mistakes happen.
> When the sub-tree maintainer accepts your patch they add any outstanding
> tags, as well as their own S-o-B. This is little work compard to actually
> applying & testing the patch before pushing it
Noted. One of the reasons for sending this email was also my experience
interacting with upstream QEMU community, where the said tags are indeed
more rigorously used.
> > Thoughts / remarks / rotten tomatoes welcome.
>
> I'd like to see us formally adopt the signed-off-by approach for all
> patches as a mandatory thing, along with the associated contributor
> convenant.
By "contributor covenant", I presume you're referring to:
http://contributor-covenant.org/
http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code_of_conduct.txt
--
/kashyap
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
