[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 01/12] xenctx: Clean up stack trace when hypercall_page not in symbol table

On 11/07/13 07:36, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:47 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.11.13 at 09:22, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 08:07 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
And a note on patch submission: You send _to_ the list, and _cc_
maintainers and other relevant people (without stretching the
meaning of "relevant" too much).
Do we need such a rule? Why is it useful?

I personally don't mind which field causes the mail to arrive in my
INBOX. I suppose you filter "To: xen-devel; Cc: Jan" differently to "To:
Jan; Cc: xen-devel"?
Exactly. Mails Cc-ed to me get treated almost equally to all other
xen-devel traffic, whereas mails directed at me mean to me that
a response or other kind of action is expected. Basically the
usual (common sense?) email rules...

So maybe I was too strict about the maintainer part - I don't mind
being sent mails to me that fall under the areas I'm maintainer of,
since there I'm obviously requested to take some sort of action.
But in the case here I certainly feel it was wrong to send the
whole series _to_ everyone.
Ah, yes that makes sense, I hadn't noticed that bit.
Well, I was confused. get_maintainer.pl reports that

George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:XENTRACE)
Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> (supporter:TOOLSTACK)


ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>

and I followed that. It was months ago that I read over the wiki page.

Jan came from:
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xenctx: Add an option to output more registers.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:00:05 +0100
From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
To: Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Don Slutz <Don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>>> On 17.10.13 at 20:41, Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Don Slutz <Don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Also fixup handling of symbol files, and output of 2 page stacks, and output 
> of non stack memory.

Considering the size of the change this should be broken up, and
the individual changes need to be described better in the commit
and my understanding was that re-worked patches need to have --to=<responder> added. One on the things that is not clear is do I change from --cc= to --to=after a response?

the_code_you_are_modifying is confusingly worded and somewhat contradictory, 
in that it initially requests to send to the maintainer and then later to cc 
them. As I say, I don't think it really matters which but if you care then it 
would be useful to clarify the wording there.
Yes, I think we should.
I would agree. I would also change the wording in MAINTAINERS.

ÂÂ -Don Slutz
Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.