Re: pre-cursor email to incremental rev6 of altp2m patch series

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:51:16AM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/07/15 22:36, Sahita, Ravi wrote:
> > Hi Wei and Maintainers,
> >
> > While we continue to work on the maintainer review comments - we
> > prepared a minor incremental version v6 of our patch series that :
> >
> > 1. is rebased to staging 2. addresses a bug that we found/introduced
> > in v5
> >
> > The intent of creating this incremental version is to aid you in the
> > decision making for the freeze exception for altp2m (that would
> > allow us to work on things until the 24th).  We realise that the
> > decision for granting freeze exception is on Friday (17th) hence
> > this email to seek feedback - we did not want maintainers to think
> > that we are not working on the v5 feedback.
> >
> > The goal of this patch series is to identify things needed on top of
> > v6 that are absolutely necessary for 4.6 and bin things we can
> > continue addressing post inclusion in 4.6 (of course, the timeline
> > of 24th still applies - and we will be able to respond only to a
> > certain degree of changes on this v6 to meet that).
> >
> > We hear all the other comments we have on v5 from the maintainers
> > and as we continue to work on them, we wanted feedback on whether we
> > should post this v6.  Note again that this v6 does not have all the
> > other v5 comments addressed as we work through them simply due to
> > timing (and getting you a version that cleanly applies to staging).
> >
> > Please give feedback on whether we should post v6 of the patch
> > series. (I know this email is late for UK maintainers, but we will
> > respond as soon as we see a critical mass of responses)
> >
> > Thanks much, Ravi
> 
> Overall, the altp2m series is looking in good shape, with half the
> series already acked/reviewed  (taking into account the R-b tags which
> should have been dropped).
> 
> On balance, I think it is reasonably likely at this point that the
> series can be turned around to address the remaining feedback by the
> 24th.
> 
> Therefore, my recommendation is to grant the freeze exception.
> 

Thanks. My understanding is that this feature is low risk and very
useful, and now maintainer has very positive view on this series.

I'm happy to grant a freeze exception. Again, this series should be
applied by the 24th, otherwise it misses the boat for 4.6.

Ravi, I think the idea of incremental patch series on top of v5 will
confuse reviewers. IMO you need to post a v6 full series. If you're not
sure what are the absolute things that you need to address, reply to the
comments in previous version and get clarification from maintainers.

Wei.

> ~Andrew