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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 08.04.16 at 19:09, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Since when can patches go in without any ack(s) of relevant
maintainers?

Jan


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