On 12 November 2013 02:07, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Il 12/11/2013 11:03, Marc Zyngier ha scritto: >>> > >>> > 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. >> Not sure what the benefit would be. We'd go from two trees with >> respectively x and y branches, to a single tree with x+y branches. >> >> Christoffer and I tend to work on separate topics, we track what the >> other does, and we make sure we don't overlap. And if we do, we shove >> the related patches in the same branch. Overall, whether or not we >> switch to co-maintainership, I don't expect our workflow to change much. > > Yes, I think your workflow is fine as is. > > Andrew, with two co-maintainers Christoffer and Marc would probably send > more frequent pull requests. You're probably better off sending them > patches based on kvm/next directly. > Or just ask us if you're working on a feature, and you want to know where to get the latest sources or what to send pull requests against. Usually, if it's 32-bit stuff, it's against kvm-arm-next in my tree, which is equivalent to kvm/next workflow wise. -Christoffer -- 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
