[libvirt] maint: backport of 736e017e and friends
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
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:28:35PM +0200, 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?
If they cherry-pick cleanly, or with trivial resolution then it is fine to backport them to -maint branches without re-posting for review IMHO. If they have nasty conflicts to resolve, then post the backport for review first in normal way. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:28:35PM +0200, 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?
If they cherry-pick cleanly, or with trivial resolution then it is fine to backport them to -maint branches without re-posting for review IMHO.
If they have nasty conflicts to resolve, then post the backport for review first in normal way.
Conflicts were minimal up to v1.0.3-maint (to few branches I included one more trivial patch) and I haven't back-ported to older maintenance branches since nobody hit this issue until now. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Martin
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
IMO both those commits look fine, I've backported large cleanups in the past to ease backporting bug fixes. Thanks, Cole
On 04/08/2014 05:28 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
Backporting all three as a series makes the most sense for me; if there's no major conflicts, then go ahead an push it to the maint branches that are impacted. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
participants (4)
-
Cole Robinson -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Eric Blake -
Martin Kletzander