Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane. [and 1 more messages]

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested 
Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ 
but sane."):
> On the other hand, I think there's a bit of a faulty interpretation of
> the procedure here.  Jan reviewed the patch thoroughly and then acked
> it; on the basis of that, Konrad legitimately checked it in.  After it
> was checked in Jan said, "I've changed my mind and withdraw my Ack";
> and the assumption of the subsequent conversation was that an ack
> *can* be withdrawn after it has been legitimately checked in, and that
> if no other Ack is supplied, then it must be reverted.
> 
> I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the rules.  Reviewers
> in general, and maintainers in particular, should make reasonably sure
> that they mean the Ack before they give it; and if they change their
> mind after it has been legitimately checked in, then it's now up to
> them to make the change they want to see according to the regular
> procedure.

For the record, I agree completely with George here.  I was expecting
that the next step would be to for Jan to post patches to revert the
extra hypercall and replace it with something else.

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:
> And btw., considering that Konrad has already posted a revert patch,
> and I have ack-ed that one, this could now go in right away (and the
> discussion could either be settled or start over).

I don't see that patch you describe in my inbox, but maybe I have
missed it.

If that reversion is proposed, following a request for a 2nd/3rd
opinion from me and George, and given the discussion so far, I think
that patch ought to have been CC'd to me and George.

I don't think it would be appropriate to commit a revert except as
part of a series which introduces an replacement way of providing the
needed functionality - at least, enough functionality that in practice
a plausibly long build-id can be retrieved.

If you want the original reverted, I think it is up to you, Jan, to
provide (or procure) such a replacement.

Thanks,
Ian.

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