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.

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