On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 07:41:30PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 11/11/2013 19:26, Marc Zyngier ha scritto: > >> > The pull requests were clean and my life wasn't complicated much... On > >> > the other hand I'm trying to understand if there's something that can be > >> > improved because the conflict surprised me. Right now, in fact, it's > >> > not even entirely clear to me why ARM and ARM64 have separate maintainers. > > Mostly because arm64 was developed and merged before any kind of useful > > documentation was publicly available. As I've written most of the code, > > it was only logical that I'd assume responsibility for it. > > That was my understanding as well. > > > Christoffer and I are actually working quite well together, and I don't > > think there is much to improve, short of sharing a common git tree. And > > to be perfectly clear, I wouldn't mind if we were written down as > > co-maintainers for both ports... > > Then go for it. :) Send a patch to MAINTAINERS, get an Acked-by from > Christoffer and I'll apply it. > > Gleb and I share the git tree and hand it off "formally" by email every > 1 or 2 weeks to the other person. After the email is sent, the sender > should no longer push to the shared tree. This however is by no means > the only way to proceed, having separate trees and sending separate pull > requests works well too. I would not mind the occasional conflict, and > I'd be hardly surprised. I'd cast my vote (if I have one) towards the sharing a tree method. For those of us scrambling to get caught up with kvmarm, a reduction in the number of trees and branches we need to track would be a welcome change. drew _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
