[GEDI] [RFC v5 000/126] error: auto propagated local_err

Kevin Wolf kwolf at redhat.com
Wed Nov 20 13:13:22 UTC 2019

Am 20.11.2019 um 13:59 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 11/20/19 3:50 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > Okay...
> > 
> > I think that:
> > 
> > 1. A lot of efforts (not only my, I think reviewing is already exceeded generation efforts)
> >     are made, it would be sad to lose them.
> > 
> > 2. It's safe enough to apply only part of generated patches: we just fix error_abort/error_fatal
> >     in more popular subsystems, what's wrong with that? Why not to cover 80% cases by 20% efforts?
> > 
> > 3. It's obviously impossible to merge the whole series. A lot of time passed, series diverges.
> > 
> > 
> > So I propose the following plan:
> > 
> > 1. I resend small separate series of preparation patches per maintainer. They are good anyway.
> > 
> > 2. We commit patch with macro (changing MUST to SHOULD in documentation) and coccinelle script.
> >      (or that may be combined with the first series from [3.])
> > 
> > 3. When one of preparations taken to maintainer's tree, I send generated patches for
> >      its maintainer.
> I'd still prefer waiting for direction from Markus.  We've been tied up by
> other things (KVM Forum, 4.2 release), but now that we are in freeze, this
> is actually a GOOD time for Markus to finally get back to this series, and
> there is going to be less rebasing needed if we can apply the entire cleanup
> right as 5.0 development opens in a couple of weeks.

Actually, that's possibly the worst possible time for avoiding conflicts
because during freeze, maintainers are collecting stuff in private
branches for weeks without getting it into master.

If you are the one who gets merged first (what are the odds?), that
solves the problem for you, but then everyone else will get conflicts.

I like Vladimir's new plan.


More information about the integration mailing list