Re: [PATCH] domain_conf: Do not use USB by default for <input> devices on s390x

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/13/20 4:08 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
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.

This was exactly my reasoning when I decided to push it:

  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
 10 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)



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.

If the fix was large or risky, then certainly wait another release cycle. But I don't think that's the case here. But I can revert the patches and merge them after the release, if that makes you feel better about our release. I don't care that much.


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?


What we can have is a different branching model. We could have a master that is always ready to accept patches and individual releases would just branch from the master.

Michal

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list




[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux