Re: [libvirt] maint: backport of 736e017e and friends
On 04/08/2014 07:28 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
I wanted to back-port 736e017e as requested in Bug 1058149 [1],
because it fixes a crash. However, it requires 5b3492fa and e9d09fe1
to be back-ported as well, so I wanted to confirm it's still OK when
it's not a simple two-liner or similar (and combined with the low
probability of the crash to happen). What's the stand on this?
Martin
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058149
IMO both those commits look fine, I've backported large cleanups in the past
to ease backporting bug fixes.
Thanks,
Cole