On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 13:17 +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> > Can't think of anything specific, but when I backported >> > the fixes to libvirt 3.2.0 there were quite a few conflicts >> > to take care of, so if Linaro is using a much older libvirt >> > version I can imagine the backport would get even trickier. >> >> Is the 3.2.0 backport available somewhere public? > > I'm afraid that's not yet the case. I see you're using 3.4.0 > as your base version, so it wouldn't be of much help anyway. > > I took a quick peek at the git tree pointed to in the bug > report and it looks like the backport was created not through > cherry-picking of the relevant upstream commits, but by > applying the patches straight off the mailing list. > > That is *not* the correct way to perform a backport, for a > number or reasons: > > * you lose metadata such as R-b tags; > > * you don't have any information linking the downstream > commit to the respective upstream commit, which will > make it more difficult to figure out which commits can > be dropped during the next rebase; > > * most importantly, any issue pointed out during review > that has a straightforward enough fix not to warrant > a respin will *still be present* in the backport. > Sure, in Riku's defense, I think the backport was done before the patches were committed upstream. But we'll give it another go. Thanks, -Christoffer -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
