Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen

* Re: [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen
@ 2010-03-12 11:44 Boris Derzhavets
  2010-03-12 11:59 ` Stefano Stabellini
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread
From: Boris Derzhavets @ 2010-03-12 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sheng Yang, Stefano Stabellini; +Cc: Fitzhardinge, xen-devel

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2808 bytes --]

Is there any kernel branch having PV on HVM already applied and ready 
for testing (under 4.0-rc6)  ?

Boris.

--- On Fri, 3/12/10, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] PV on HVM Xen
To: "Sheng Yang" <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Jeremy@yahoo.com, "Stefano Stabellini" <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Ian Pratt" <Ian.Pratt@eu.citrix.com>, "Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@eu.citrix.com>, Keir@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:42 AM

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 23:46:54 Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Hi all,
> 
> Stefano,
> 
> And next time when you send out the patch, please be more respect to my work.
> 
> You dropped all the original author(me) of patchset, and only add a sign-off 
> for me. If you don't aware the difference, here is a snippet of 
> linux/Documentation/SummittingPatches
> 

I am truly sorry and apologise for it, I would never want to give you
the impression of being disrespectful of you and your work.
If you pay attention I manually wrote in the comments of all the past
versions of the patches that you were the original author, this time I
just forgot.
I guess it is really the time I start using git-send-email :)

Your work has been really important for my series and you deserve the
credit for it independently from which patch series gets applied.

> Another thing is, you were keeping using my old patches as your base, while I 
> was working with the reviewers to update the patch quickly. I don't think 
> that's a kind of respect to both reviewers' and my work. You would duplicate 
> reviewer's effect, especially you always repost the whole patch(and drop my 
> authorship) rather than the different part. I've split patches in order to 
> provide a code base for further development, but you complete ignored them and 
> keeping post the whole patchset based on my old patches.
> 

I don't keep using your old patches as a base but I manually rebase over
the most recent patch series you sent every time.
Obviously it is not a perfect system and sometimes I can miss something,
this is why at the beginning I asked you to work together on the same
tree: I wanted to avoid exactly this sort of issues.

My intentions are true so my proposal of working on a common tree is
still valid, just let me know when you are interested.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3495 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread