----- "Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues" <mrodrigu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 12:23 -0400, Michael Goldish wrote: > > The patches look good, but I haven't tested them yet to make sure > > they leave everything at a functional state (will test them and let > > you know). > > Thanks Michael! I will start to give more thorough test on this > today, > since we finally got 0.10 in shape. > > > I have a somewhat related question: how is KVM-Autotest development > > going to proceed after the upstream merge? Currently I have > > comfortable access to our repository at TLV, and on good days I > push > > as many as 20 patches per day. Should I submit all patches to the > > Autotest mailing list after the merge, or are we going to work with > > pull requests, or some other way? Will we work with git or svn? > > Here is my plan: For people inside our team, with access to the git > tree > we can just pull stuff to the git tree and on a given time basis I > can > pick up the patches and send them altogether to the KVM and autotest > mailing list, wait for reviews and then check them. I think it would be nice to have a 'fast' development channel like directly pulling from a git tree. > If you are already used to send all your changes to the KVM mailing > list > though, this would pose little or no change to you, just send an > additional cc to the autotest mailing list. > > What do you think? So far we've kept development mostly internal in TLV, so I'm not quite used to passing my commits through the mailing list. Will this be necessary? I'm worried it might slow down development to a grinding halt. Thanks, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
