pre-cursor email to incremental rev6 of altp2m patch series

pre-cursor email to incremental rev6 of altp2m patch series

[Sahita, Ravi]

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

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

[Andrew Cooper]

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.

~Andrew

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

[Wei Liu]

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

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

[Sahita, Ravi]

>From: Wei Liu [mailto:wei.liu2@citrix.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 4:25 AM
>
>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.


Thanks Wei and Maintainers - we will work towards a full v6 .
I will shortly send out an email asking for some clarifications for v6, so that we have a manageable (and acceptable) target given the time remaining.

Ravi


>
>> ~Andrew