Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 31.03.16 at 15:28, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:07:58AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 13:43, <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:30:09AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 30.03.16 at 17:43, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > Since they're all cosmetic, if you take care of all of them, feel free
> >> >> > to stick my ack on the result.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Actually - no, please don't. While the patch is fine content wise
> >> >> then from my perspective, I'm still lacking a convincing argument
> >> >> of why this new hypercall is needed in the first place. If others
> >> >> are convinced by the argumentation between (mostly, iirc) you
> >> >> and Andrew, I'm not going to stand in the way, but I'm also not
> >> >> going to approve of the code addition without being myself
> >> >> convinced.
> >> > 
> >> > Damm. I pushed the patch in yesterday in 'staging'!
> >> > 
> >> > We can always revert them..
> >> > 
> >> > "Others" being other maintainers I presume?
> >> 
> >> Any one of the REST maintainers, yes.
> > 
> > Changing the title to get their attention.
> 
> Yet nothing has happened, so I think the patch needs to be
> reverted (at least for the time being).

Wait what?!

The natural consensus mechanism we use is lazy. If nobody
objects then it is Acked.

Anyhow pinged Ian Jackson on IRC.

> 
> Jan
> 

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