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 06:21:27PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:13:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> 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?
> > 
> 
> Urgh, at the risk of pointing out the obvious -- it does seem to have
> your ack...

Which was given at night before Jan retracted it in the morning.

This feels like one of those Catch-22 :-)

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