On 04/08/2014 05:28 AM, 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? > > Martin > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058149 Backporting all three as a series makes the most sense for me; if there's no major conflicts, then go ahead an push it to the maint branches that are impacted. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list