On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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.
Conflicts were minimal up to v1.0.3-maint (to few branches I included one more trivial patch) and I haven't back-ported to older maintenance branches since nobody hit this issue until now. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list