On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 09:22 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 2/27/19 2:53 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 15:48 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > > I redid this into the two patches, and pushed. > > > > I don't think that was appropriate, considering that we're during > > the pre-release freeze and this looks like a new feature rather > > than an urgent fix. > > The ack was given before the freeze. But I'm also okay with reverting > them back out of 5.1 if you think that is more appropriate. I didn't realize that, sorry. I'm not really sure whether we have an established policy for this kind of situation, but in my opinion the freeze applies regardless of when the ACK was granted, since it's intended to be a period during which the code that's going to end up in the next release is tested and validated, which makes minimizing changes and limit them to bugfixes only highly desiderable. That said, the feature is small enough and was merged early enough in the freeze period that I would not have advocated for reverting it either way. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
