Re: [Qemu-riscv] [Qemu-devel] [PR RFC] RISC-V Patches for 3.2, Part 3

[Thomas Huth]

On 2019-02-02 09:41, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 01:51:52 PST (-0800), Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 06:39, Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2019-01-30 20:01, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:45:33 PST (-0800), address@hidden wrote:
>>> >> On 1/30/19 11:35 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> >>> The following changes since commit
>>> >>> 5385a5988c8a55bebdc878c05b96648579b5d6e0:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   hw/virtio/virtio-balloon: zero-initialize the
>>> virtio_balloon_config
>>> >>> struct (2019-01-21 17:20:36 +0000)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   git://github.com/palmer-dabbelt/qemu.git
>>> >>> tags/riscv-for-master-3.2-part3
>>> >>>
>>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to
>>> 461ab9de46d085a37b0da6f096aadc4e0dda4d4c:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   target/riscv: fix counter-enable checks in ctr() (2019-01-29
>>> >>> 11:33:38 -0800)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> RISC-V Patches for 3.2, Part 3
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no 3.2 release; the next release is named 4.0.  However,
>>> if you
>>> >> don't want to bother with sending a v2 pull request just to fix the
>>> >> merge commit message, that's okay with me.
>>> >
>>> > Ah, sorry.  I think I'm just going to leave it as is, I'll get it
>>> right
>>> > next time.
>>>
>>> Also note that you used "PR RFC" in the title ... so not sure whether
>>> Peter's scripts will catch this PR as a valid one...
>>
>> My mail filter finds these RFC pullrequests, yes. I'm then
>> relying on my manual brain to not actually apply them.
>> (If it's a slow day I might do a test merge on them, but
>> usually my queue is full enough that I don't get to them
>> before the real PR appears.)
> 
> Ah, OK -- do you want me to do something else?

At least I got a little bit confused by "PR RFC" ... I think some other
maintainers rather send out patch series marked with "PATCH" first, and
add some non-pull-request cover letter with a text like "I'm intending
to send a pull request for this soon, please review one more time...".
Then after a day or two, once Patchew checked the series and nobody else
complained, they send a real "PULL" request.
(at least that's how I saw the handling on the mailing list in the past,
not sure whether Peter has a different point of view here, though).

 Thomas