On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:17:27 -0500, John Ferlan wrote: > > On 02/25/2015 07:52 AM, Ján Tomko wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > ACK both > > > > If I understand the rules of the road correctly... Since the original > > series was reviewed prior to the freeze and this just adjust that, it > > seems reasonable to say it's OK for freeze... > > Actually I'd rather not codify that as a rule. After the freeze > everythling should be re-evaluated if it makes sense actually to push. > > Purpose of the freeze is not to limit new features appearing but have a > line where stuff that is likely to break the comming release in any way > to be limited. > > If you get a review for a big feature prior to the freeze and then send > a few patches after the freeze it will not make them automagically > appear in the RC-package or any less likely to break the release. > > I think only fixes that target code that was touched in the last devel > cycle or fix a obvious bug in a common path should be taken, otherwise > we might as well as not have any freeze. Yep, any ack'd features really should be pushed before the freeze starts. If they miss that then they ought to wait in general, as we frequently see that new feature patches break the build on Win32 or BSD platforms, and validating those platforms is the main point of having a freeze. 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 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list