Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2021.11.11 15:03, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > In 64bc752 (trace2: add trace2_child_ready() to report on background >> > children, 2021-09-20), we added a new "child_ready" event. In >> > Documentation/technical/api-trace2.txt, we promise that adding a new >> > event type will result in incrementing the trace2 event format version >> > number, but this was not done. Correct this in code & docs. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > Documentation/technical/api-trace2.txt | 4 ++-- >> > trace2/tr2_tgt_event.c | 2 +- >> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> Hmph, it seems to me that this is better done before the release, >> or am I mistaken? > > Ideally yes, although I am not sure if there is anyone using traces who > strongly depends on the accuracy of the evt field. Relieving us from having to keep track of the actual users is the point of documenting to making promises ;-) > For release-blocking > fixes (for lack of a better term), should I have sent this patch > differently? I do not think so. Thanks.
