On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 15:02 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 1/13/20 2:06 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > I don't believe either this or the other patch posted by Thomas > > should have been pushed during the freeze period. I won't ask you > > to revert them, but please refrain from pushing further changes > > unless 6.0.0 would be utterly broken without them. > > I thought that freeze period is for us for merge fixes (and this is > one). I believe this patch (and the other too) has no impact on non-s390 > arches AND fixes 6.0.0 for the s390. > > And for "utterly broken" - I don't think that's the rule per se. I think > we need to evaluate each patch individually. The way I see it, the freeze period is intended to stabilize libvirt for the upcoming release; as such, changes merged during freeze should ideally be exceedingly small and targeted. Of course it's always a trade-off, and whether the positive outcome outweights the risk of potentially introducing more issues is to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Is the patch fixing an issue that was introduced in this release? Then it's probably worth merging it, because doing so avoids the situation where we release known-broken software. Is it fixing a long-standing issue, as is the case here? Then it can probably wait until the next release. I feel like this conversation has happened a number of times on the list already. Perhaps it would be a good idea to try and converge to a set of accepted guidelines that we can add to our existing contributor-oriented documentation? -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
