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 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list