Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] qemu-xen:Correctly expose PCH ISA bridge for IGD passthrough [and 2 more messages]

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/05/13 11:00, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 10:40 +0100, Pasi KÃrkkÃinen wrote:
> > > I can only second what Ian already said - pinging on a patch that
> > > has responses missing from the originator is bad practice. If you
> > > wanted to ping anyone, you'd have to ping those who failed to
> > > answer questions raised to them, not give the appearance of
> > > requesting a patch to be taken that is only half baked.
> > I mostly wanted to clarify the situation with these patches,
> Instead of adding more work to our already overburdened maintainers
> please start in these cases by working with the submitter.
>
> It is the submitters responsibility to respond to queries and to keep
> pushing the patch as necessary. If the submitter isn't engaged any more
> then you need to either pick it up yourself or find someone else who is
> willing to carry the patch forward, there's no point asking the
> maintainers to clarify the situation if no one is around who is going to
> act on their responses.
But if he were going to pick it up, or if he wants to go work with the 
submitter, who may not have a clear understanding what the delay was 
about or how the development process works, then he'd first need to 
figure out what the status was, right?
This sort of "facilitating" role seems like a useful thing to do to 
allow contributions which would otherwise flounder to make it above the 
bar into acceptance.
 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel