Re: maint: backport of 736e017e and friends

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

 



On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:28:35PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> I wanted to back-port 736e017e as requested in Bug 1058149 [1],
> because it fixes a crash.  However, it requires 5b3492fa and e9d09fe1
> to be back-ported as well, so I wanted to confirm it's still OK when
> it's not a simple two-liner or similar (and combined with the low
> probability of the crash to happen).  What's the stand on this?

If they cherry-pick cleanly, or with trivial resolution then it
is fine to backport them to -maint branches without re-posting
for review IMHO.

If they have nasty conflicts to resolve, then post the backport for
review first in normal way.

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




[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]