Re: [Xen-devel] [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new 
parameters to set rdm policy"):
> On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I appreciate that I have come to this review late.  While I have found
> > the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
> > I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
> >
> > Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
> > avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series.  After
> > discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
...
> Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give 
> us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe 
> you should can get that expected answer to your question.

As I say, I'm sorry that I have come to this late.  There were other
pressing problems taking my attention, but of course that is my
problem and not your fault.

(If I had been undertaking this review a couple of months ago I would
have been taking a much harder line.)

> Yes, we need to do this better. But this kind of argument really 
> shouldn't finish just one week.

I think the remaining changes I am asking for are a few small simple
mechanical changes.  If this series does not make 4.6 it will not be
because of this.

I suggest we defer discussion of the other matters until after the
freeze is in place, since (as I have indicated) I do not regard them
as blockers.  That will also give us some time to cool off, and also
perhaps for other community members to intervene helpfully.

Thanks,
Ian.

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