On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> writes: > > > Il 12/02/2013 09:42, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > >>> > No, it wasn't. The patch was reviewed and tested. What's the problem. > >>> > It's proposed for 1.4 so it's now or never. > >> The problem is that the test failed. Why do we even test things if we > >> commit anyway when the test fails? > >> > >> And why do we have subsystem trees when a committer comes (without even > >> having taken part in the discussion) and applies patches that the > >> subsystem maintainers are very obviously not happy with? If you like, > >> you can have the block subsystem back, just send - or better just apply > >> - a patch against MAINTAINERS. > >> > > > > I think this is just a problem with the new tools, that didn't make it > > clear that you were not happy with the patch. (It was clear from the > > mailing list). > > > > In general, the new tools sound like an improvement, but it's normal to > > have a misunderstanding or two in the initial period. > > Yup. No need to get excited. > > Let's revert this patch for 1.4, keeping QEMU exactly as working and as > broken as it has always been. Then figure out which additional cases we > can make work for 1.5, and which ones we have to break for that, if any.
I'll send a block pull request that includes a revert. Stefan
